Domestic Abuse

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady, Baroness Lister, on securing this afternoon’s debate on an incredibly important subject. I also commend her cattle prod-like approach to this matter over the years—certainly in the time that I have known her. I thank noble Lords for some of the very moving speeches that I have heard, including those by the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Paddick. Some of these things are not easy to say in public, but noble Lords did that. The contributions have been many and varied, which has added to the debate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who spoke in the gap, that I fully appreciate where she is coming from. I will give her a more thoughtful response, probably by letter—I am sure we will have discussions about this anyway.

The statistics are shocking. Domestic abuse affects almost 2 million victims in England and Wales every year. It can be physical, psychological and emotional, and is carried out by those supposedly closest to the victims—as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, often they love them, which is a very strange emotion to have while beating that person to a pulp—in an environment that should be a place of safety and security. Domestic abuse has a devastating impact on the lives of survivors and, as many noble Lords said, particularly my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lady Bertin and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, it can have intergenerational consequences for children.

The Government are committed to doing everything we can to end domestic abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me what vigour we will put into this. We have for many years voiced our opposition to what is happening to victims of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse, and we will continue to do this with the same vigour.

On 8 March, International Women’s Day, we launched a public consultation on transforming the response to domestic abuse. I was very shocked by what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said about GPs and I hope that he will raise that point during the consultation process. The Government’s aim is to build a society that has absolutely no tolerance of domestic abuse. We want to actively empower survivors, communities and professionals to confront and challenge it, and we are determined to ensure that victims feel safe and supported and can get help to rebuild their lives. Our consultation outlines a programme of work designed to prevent domestic abuse; many noble Lords talked about prevention. It is based on four principles: first, changing attitudes; secondly, protecting victims; thirdly, pursuing perpetrators; and, fourthly, making sure that everyone across the country receives a consistent response.

Many Peers asked what we are doing, going wider than the Bill. We know that legislation alone will not transform our response to domestic abuse. For this reason, the legislative proposals outlined in the consultation will be accompanied by a package of non-legislative action to tackle domestic abuse. We are also providing an additional £20 million for support services in recognition of the need for further funding. But from the speeches I have heard this afternoon, I think we all agree that we need societal change towards this terrible crime.

I want to be clear that the focus of this work is very much on victims and their children. Abuse has a devastating impact on children and we know that adults who witnessed domestic abuse as a child are far more likely to experience such abuse by a partner as an adult. We have introduced a new ground-breaking offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin mentioned. We have placed domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing, rolled out the domestic violence disclosure scheme and introduced domestic violence protection orders.

This debate has raised some really important points about protection and support for victims. I will try to address the issues in turn, but first I will talk about prevention, which was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lady Jenkin and other noble Lords, and about tackling the drivers of abuse so that we can put an end to this appalling crime. The Government want to oversee a fundamental shift in social attitudes towards domestic violence. We need to ensure that all domestic abuse is properly understood, considered unacceptable and actively challenged across statutory agencies and in public attitudes. We are proposing to enshrine a definition of domestic abuse in legislation, to ensure that it is recognised as more than just violence and includes not only emotional and psychological abuse but economic abuse—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Jenkin said, is an appalling form of abuse that threatens a victim’s economic security and acts as a significant barrier to escaping domestic abuse and rebuilding their lives.

As my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Bertin, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, said, we want to act early to equip all young people to have healthy and respectful relationships by helping all schools deliver high-quality relationships education, sex education and PSHE. We want to promote awareness and an improved response across statutory agencies, employers and communities as a whole, so that domestic abuse is rightly recognised as not the victim’s business but everybody’s business.

We want to make it easier for victims to come forward and seek support. We also want the support and protection they receive to enable them to feel safe, to recover and to rebuild their lives. This Government have allocated increased funding of £100 million to support victims of violence against women and girls over this spending review period. This includes funding for a service transformation fund, national helplines, rape support centres and £40 million towards supporting women in crisis, including for refuges. Some £20 million of this funding was announced in the Spring Budget and is specifically for services for domestic abuse victims, £8 million of which will be used to support children who witness domestic abuse and help with their recovery through locally commissioned projects. Some £2 million will support female offenders, 60% of whom we know have experienced domestic abuse themselves. A further £2 million will be used to ensure that victims have better access to support in health settings, and we are seeking views through the consultation on how we should use the final £8 million.

Noble Lords have raised the issue of refuge provision extensively, and I would reassure the House that the Government recognise the critical support that refuges provide to vulnerable people at a time of crisis. We are completely committed to developing a sustainable funding model for refuges and ensuring that there is consistent provision across the country. That is why we are reviewing—I hope this answers many noble Lords’ questions—the way in which refuges and supported housing are delivered. We have heard the need for a sustainable funding model for refuges, which is why we were undertaking a thorough review of commissioning and funding of all domestic abuse services, including refuges in England. We will be working closely with the domestic abuse sector, drawing on its data, knowledge and expertise to make sure that we get this right. That process is ongoing and we have been clear that no options are off the table, as we work with them to ensure that women requiring support in their time of need are not let down.

This goes to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and, I assume, that of other noble Lords. I can guarantee that funding for refuges will continue at the same level as today. We will ring-fence funding for supported housing overall, including refuges, indefinitely. A refuge can be life-saving and we recognise that, when victims of domestic abuse have no option other than to leave their home, a refuge provides a vital place of safety. We have increased bed provision by 10% since 2010, which goes to the point from my noble friend Lady Bertin. Through the proposed Bill and wider programme of work, we also want to do more to intervene early, both with victims and perpetrators, so far fewer victims are forced into the appalling position of having to flee their home and community.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about the implications of universal credit. There is currently a review of the funding model, which will report in the summer. Refuge payments will be made outside of housing benefit and universal credit. As such, we are removing an individual’s liability to pay rent at a vulnerable point in their life.

She also asked about specialist refuges and funding for specialist services. It cannot be right to continue with a system that forces women to cover housing costs themselves, forces them to apply for benefits at a difficult time in their lives and then leaves them with personal debt—we know how important this is. That is why we are not only consulting on short-term support from the accommodation model, but also conducting a thorough review of domestic abuse services to make sure we get this right. This wider review is looking at gaps in provision, including specialist provision, what domestic abuse services need to be available for women to meet their individual circumstances and how we can implement the best system to deliver these services.

We are doing more to support those who have made the decision to leave an abusive situation. The Government’s Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill will maintain the status of survivors living in social housing with an existing lifetime tenancy when they move to a new social property. I pay tribute again to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for raising this issue and for her central role in bringing the legislation forward.

My noble friend Lady Jenkin asked about the postcode lottery. Some local authorities are doing a good job, but to improve our understanding of the national picture, we have appointed an external organisation to undertake an audit of all local authority-commissioned domestic abuse services.

I am completely out of time, but my noble friend also asked about support costs. We totally recognise the vital importance of local funding for support services. While it is for local authorities to manage funding according to local priorities, we expect them to provide the right services to local communities, especially for vulnerable and older people. There are myriad other questions that I have not answered because I have got only half way through my answers. I thank noble Lords again for their contributions, and I shall write to noble Lords in answer to questions.

House adjourned at 7.11 pm.

Police: Undercover Officers

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what communications they have had, over the last 30 years, with police forces regarding the tactic of undercover police officers forming sexual relationships to develop their cover stories.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, as part of its terms of reference the undercover policing inquiry is investigating the state of awareness of undercover police operations of Her Majesty’s Government since 1968. The Home Office is a core participant in that inquiry and is in the process of making disclosure to the inquiry of material relevant to the terms of reference. The inquiry will report its findings once all the evidence has been reviewed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response, which of course was not an answer to my Question. Is she aware that, over a period of 24 years from 1985 to 2009, almost every single year there was a state-sponsored sexual relationship between a police officer and a woman who at no point was accused of doing anything illegal—not arrested, not accused? I just do not understand how the Minister can think that this is all right. This strikes at the heart of the ethics and integrity of our police forces and our security services. I stress that the cases we know about are only the ones we have heard about: those are the only police names in the public realm. Until we know all the names of the undercover police we will not know how many victims there were. I am also concerned about the inquiry. The Minister may know that there was a walkout today by the whole legal team of the women involved and the women themselves. How will the Government restore the credibility of that inquiry?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness says “state-sponsored”. I refer her to the terms of reference of the inquiry, which state that it will,

“ascertain the state of awareness of undercover police operations in Her Majesty’s Government”.

That is precisely what the inquiry was set up to do. As for the walkout today, I have been made aware of that and I am aware that the hearings are still ongoing. I encourage all core participants—indeed, anyone impacted by undercover policing—to participate fully in the inquiry so that we can learn the lessons and get to the truth.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a very serious matter? Notwithstanding anything that comes out of the inquiry and the recommendations that follow, can she confirm that she is absolutely confident that robust procedures are now in place and that it can never happen again?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I would love to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that certain things could never happen again, but nobody can legislate for the odd rogue undertaking or the malicious intent of people. Therefore, one cannot be absolutely certain that it could never happen again. What one can do is put measures in place to ensure, as far as possible, that it never happens again.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that undercover policing is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism and crime and that, provided it is properly regulated and standards are adhered to, we should not judge the majority of very brave police officers who go undercover by the misdeeds of a few?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I completely concur with the noble Lord. He is absolutely right; much crime has been unearthed by the use of undercover policing. As I say, there are now strict rules in place to prevent unacceptable behaviour going on and I could not agree more with him.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, we know that this inquiry has already taken three years, and it is expected that it will take another year before the victims get answers—campaigners walking out in protest today notwithstanding. We also know that the Special Demonstration Squad has been disbanded. But it would be naive to think that all embedded undercover work has ceased. What assurances can the Minister give that the culture, practice, instructions to and supervision of undercover officers have already changed to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, no man or woman will ever be subjected to these practices again?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, because the policing Code of Ethics makes it clear that police officers should not use their professional position to,

“establish or pursue an improper sexual or emotional relationship with a person with whom you come into contact in the course of your work”.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides the legal framework for the lawful deployment of undercover officers as covert human intelligence sources. We also have the 2014 CHIS codes of practice.

In relation to the length of time that the inquiry has taken, the slight extension to that is purely due to the sheer number of pieces of information it has to look at.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the walkout from the inquiry was because of a sense that it was important that the individual police officers were identified by name. Will the Minister confirm that, by definition, undercover police officers have a cover name, and that, whatever the importance of getting to the bottom of what went on in this inquiry, it is important that they retain anonymity, because that is a pre-eminent part of what they do?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right—of course, it protects the safety of those people as well.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

Will the Minister also confirm that this is not just a matter of rules and regulations? If it went on for so long, there must have been a serious management failure, because the relationship between a senior officer and the person doing the job is crucial in terms of keeping a check on their behaviour. That seems to me—as an outsider—not to have happened, and it is what we ought to focus on.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would not like to speak for the chair of the inquiry, but I am sure that some of the institutional failures that happened way back in the day will be looked at.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, in the walkout today, the leading QC representing the victims said that it was due to the legal teams not being able to participate in a meaningful way. How have we got to a position where this has been going on for three years and cost £9 million but senior QCs feel they cannot participate in a meaningful way?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the people who walked out will have their reasons for walking out, but I know that the Home Secretary has full confidence in the chairman to carry out the inquiry in a way that gets to the truth of what happened.

Gender Equality: Pay

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further action they intend to take to reduce gender inequality in pay.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has made clear that tackling injustices such as the gender pay gap is part of building a country that works for everyone. In 2017 the Government introduced ground-breaking regulations requiring large employers to publish the differences between what they pay their male and female staff in average salaries and bonuses. Greater transparency will help to identify barriers to achieving gender equality in the workplace so that employers can take action to address them.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s reference to greater transparency. Is it not time to be bold on this issue? If we are really going to tackle such inequalities as the gender pay gap, should we not do what is done in some Scandinavian countries and put all income tax returns into the public domain?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, certainly Norway has done this. The unintended consequence of doing so was that it was seen as a snooper’s charter, a way for people to snoop into the information of people that they did not like. I think publishing the gender pay gap will give employees a greater sense of the company that they are going to work for and whether there is gender equality across pay, as opposed to a huge database that cannot have the granular detail that the gender pay gap reporting will have but can perhaps be used with other intent from how it was designed.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, transparency is of course very important, and the reporting of gender pay gaps by organisations and companies is going to be valuable. However, what comes after that? Once we know the disparity between pay in these organisations, when can we expect the gender pay gap to be closed, and when can women expect to reach pay parity with men once we know what the problem is?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness asks an interesting question about what comes next. What will come next is that this will shine a light on which companies take their gender pay obligations seriously and which simply do not. If I were a graduate going to a company with a huge gender pay gap, I would start to think about what that company would mean for me as a woman. I think it will draw into sharp focus those companies that take their obligations seriously and shame those companies and public sector organisations that do not.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will my noble friend undertake to look into the position at the BBC, where sick pay and maternity leave are being eradicated by the move to freelance contracts? Is that right? Surely employers should not be able to sidestep their employer obligations in such a radical fashion.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think what my noble friend refers to with sick pay—I am going slightly beyond my brief here—is the practice whereby people are not employees but freelance, more often than not, for companies. Given the press reporting that there has been on this, I am sure that this issue will be drawn into sharp focus.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, what does the noble Baroness think needs to be done on legislation on other matters to deal with this issue? The Equal Pay Act came on to the statute book 47 years ago. The gender pay gap is 14.1% and there is little evidence to suggest that it will close. I note what she said about shining some light on these issues, but I am conscious that with the statements under the Modern Slavery Act, many companies had a light shone on their activities but have done very little about the issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the full-time gender pay gap is 9.1%; I would like it to be nought. The noble Lord talks about the Equal Pay Act. Yes, it has been on the statute book for decades now— 47 years. I recall as leader of a council that many councils at the time had to sort out the issue of women doing the same jobs for less money than men. I think most local authorities have got to grips with that and, as I say, I look forward to the day when the gender pay gap is nought.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, where does the Minister suggest that we look for the next steps and action to be taken in those areas where equal pay still does not exist? Returning to our backyard, the public service—she just mentioned local government—is it not true that there are still significant elements of unequal pay within the Civil Service, the public service and local government? This is an area where we have control. What do the Government intend to do there?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am almost certain that most local authorities will have settled equal pay claims with their employees—mine certainly did. On what more is there to do on equal pay, if women think that they are not being paid the same as men for the same job, they are perfectly entitled to—and should—bring claims forward.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, when I joined the Civil Service in 1959 as a clerical officer, we had equal pay, and I was horrified to read that this no longer persists in Whitehall. Can the Minister explain why, given that the Act came in in 1970, Her Majesty’s Government and previous Governments have not done something about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I explained, Her Majesty’s Government have done something about it and encourage people who feel that they have equal pay claims to come forward. That certainly happens at local authority level, and in the Civil Service, we are looking closely at and continue to monitor people whose pay is not equal across the sexes.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, there are regional variations in gender pay, with London women in particular earning about £15,000 less than men. What action will the Government take once the audit is issued in April to ensure that those variations are reduced?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are encouraged by the number of companies that have so far registered for gender pay gap data: 90% in the public sector and 70% in the private sector. There are remedies if companies have not complied. If London is seen to have a particular problem then that will be thrown into focus when the figures are published.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue is not so much about the difference at the individual job level as about the fact that, relatively speaking, so few women get to senior positions in those organisations? That is where we need to put the main emphasis, to help women to be confident enough, and to be mentored and supported to get into the most senior positions in those organisations.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with the noble Lord, which is why the Government—through Women on Boards, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch—have managed to increase the proportion of women on boards of the FTSE 100 from just over 10%, which was pitiful, to 28% now. I am pleased to report that there are no FTSE 100 boards without female representation. Of course, we have much further to go. We need BME representation on boards, and women need to see role models that encourage them to go for jobs for which they are capable and to get to the top if they can.

Trafficked Children: Asylum

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, over the last 10 years, how many children trafficked into the United Kingdom who have subsequently applied for asylum have had their applications approved.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office does not publish data on the number of child victims of modern slavery who subsequently successfully claim asylum. To maintain the highest standards of accuracy, the Home Office prefers to refer to published data, as these have been subject to vigorous quality assurance prior to publication. The Home Office publishes data on the number of asylum claims from unaccompanied children. The latest published statistics can be found in the quarterly immigration statistics published on GOV.UK. These show that, in 2017, 1,212 children were granted leave; in 2016, this figure was 1,396.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Since the Court of Appeal’s decision in PK (Ghana) was handed down, the Government have had to issue interim guidance on discretionary leave to remain for victims of modern slavery, but this is a policy of no policy. It just puts decisions on hold, leaving vulnerable adults and children in limbo and in fear of losing their NRM support, as the waiting time for decisions now extends beyond the time for support afforded to them. What is the Government’s timetable for consideration of this judgment? Can they guarantee that all victims waiting for a decision on discretionary leave to remain will remain in receipt of NRM support until they receive a decision?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We are considering the implications of the judgment. While we consider the next steps, interim guidance has been issued to caseworkers to put on hold any refusals of discretionary leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery. Grants of discretionary leave are continuing. Clearly, we will come to a view as quickly as possible.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

What percentage of victims of modern slavery who apply for discretionary leave to remain following a positive NRM conclusive- grounds decision actually receive a decision about the discretionary leave within 45 days?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can tell my noble friend that in 2016 1,278 children were referred to the NRM for consideration of whether they had been a victim of modern slavery, a 30% increase on 2015. We will be publishing figures for 2017 in March and, if available for disclosure, they will be provided.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the longer the delay in reaching a decision in respect of a trafficked child, the greater the risk of that child going missing and being retrafficked?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is certainly the Government’s intention to make decisions as quickly as possible. I totally concur with the noble Baroness that if we have a vulnerable child in our care, we should make decisions about them as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can get the Government, particularly the Home Office, to reconsider the removal of children who are victims of trafficking at the age of 18.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble and learned Baroness will know, victims of trafficking are not necessarily coming into this country for an asylum route. Indeed, many of the children who are trafficked are from the UK, so it is correct that when a child reaches the age of 18, should they be from another country, their immigration status is reconsidered.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I refer to my relevant interests in the register. Does the noble Baroness think that the national referral mechanism takes proper account of children’s needs? Can she tell the House what the Government are doing to prevent children, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who arrive in this country and go missing after a few days becoming repeat victims of trafficking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am clear that the national referral mechanism meets the needs of children. As the noble Lord may know, the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability announced the Government’s proposals to reform the NRM. For children, this ensures that support for child victims is improved by continuing with the rollout of the independent child trafficking advocates. We are trying new and innovative ways to give money to NGOs as part of the child trafficking protection fund.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the advisory panel of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. I ask the Minister about the role of the modern slavery unit in the Home Office, in this area to do with children and more generally. How does the modern slavery unit help those of us working in this area of children and care for victims? How do we know what its priorities and practices are so that we can best co-operate?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The role of the commissioner should be to assess how the system is working. As I said in answer to the previous question, children should receive the specialist support and assistance that they need according to their circumstances. The role of the NRM is to ensure that a trafficked child is given the appropriate support they need from all the agencies involved to be able to move on from that traumatic experience.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that it is very important, while exercising discretion on the basis of humanity for right to remain, that we do not move away from the basic principles of the 1951 United Nations convention, which are undoubtedly tough but nevertheless important, when we choose to grant asylum to this country?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. We have an incredibly good record of granting asylum not just to adults but to children. Together with the various agencies we provide the maximum level of care that we possibly can to children who have been trafficked or who need our protection.

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

My Lords, how many of the “shoulds” and the “woulds” are actually in place? The Minister has kindly explained that there are many provisions: which ones are actually being pursued so that those kids do not immediately disappear?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I apologise to the noble Baroness: I did not hear the first part of her question.

[Baroness Afshar]

I was just asking how many of the “shoulds” and the “woulds” are actually in place, rather than statements of intention.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Modern Slavery Act is now in place and therefore its provisions are being implemented.

Money Laundering

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I thank the right honourable gentleman for giving the Government the opportunity to say what we have been doing on this area. We have made it harder for crooks to launder money through property, jewellery and betting. We have reversed the burden of proof so that people whom we think have links to organised crime have to prove where their assets come from. If they cannot, we will seize and dispose of the assets. We served the first unexplained wealth order within 14 days of the new powers being implemented. We have, for the first time, through the Magnitsky amendment, made it possible to confiscate assets from people guilty of gross human rights abuse. We will complete that with an amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill currently going through Parliament.

We have made it easier to seize criminals’ money from bank accounts. We have introduced new powers to be able to freeze assets of terrorists. We did so on the day the new law came into force. We have made it a criminal offence to fail to prevent tax evasion, both at home and overseas. We are currently exploring the potential of widening other areas where failure to prevent may apply in economic crime. We have brought a number of prosecutions for those involved in bribery under the Bribery Act, and have had the first conviction of a company for failure to prevent bribery. We introduced deferred prosecution agreements to ensure we maximise the incentive for companies to face up to fraud and corruption. We are setting up the National Economic Crime Centre in the NCA and have brought together the many strands of economic crime under one Minister. We have bolstered the SFO by ensuring access to blockbuster funding to make sure that big business and overseas oligarchs cannot use their wealth to obstruct justice.

Under the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, we initiated an international anti-corruption summit. In response to the Panama papers, we established the joint financial analysis centre in the NCA. We have established one of the world’s first public registers of beneficial ownership of companies. We have helped to establish in all overseas territories and Crown dependencies a register of beneficial ownership with mutual, and in some cases almost live-time, access for law enforcement. We have committed to establish a public register of overseas owners of property in the UK.

This Government have taken real steps to tackle criminal finance in this country. Whoever crooks are, no matter what nationality, we will pursue them and their cash”.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Question. According to the Daily Telegraph, official figures suggest that £90 billion in crime proceeds is laundered through the UK each year. The UK has for many years been seen as a desirable place to hide suspicious wealth. Can the Minister explain why the Government have done relatively little to discourage this activity thus far? Does she agree that the current laws under which owners of overseas companies can buy UK property while hiding their identities are ripe for abuse? They have not only led to an influx to the UK of suspicious wealth, but further exacerbated the crisis in the housing market. Can she please explain why the Conservatives blocked the Labour Party’s amendment in Committee on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, calling for the introduction of a Magnitsky clause? When will the Government take more effective action to tackle this problem?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can agree with the noble Lord on one thing: the impact of money laundering in the UK. However, in 2016, 1,435 people were convicted of money laundering in England and Wales. The Government established the joint money-laundering intelligence task force in 2015 to tackle the issue, and between May 2016 and March 2017 it contributed to more than 1,000 bank-led investigations into suspect customers, the closure of more than 450 suspicious bank accounts and the freezing of £7 million in suspected criminal funds.

The noble Lord talked about Labour putting forward the Magnitsky amendment. I certainly remember that, under the Criminal Finances Bill, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who put forward the Magnitsky amendment in this House and Labour did very little to tackle serious crime and corruption in this country, so I do not accept the charge he makes that we have done nothing to address this issue.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have only three very quick points. First, will the Government speed up the process of getting a public register of overseas ownership of property in the UK? Transparency International estimates that some £4 billion-worth of property in London alone has been bought by suspicious wealth. Frankly, the programme the Government have laid out gives all the perpetrators plenty of opportunity to reorganise their finances. Will they please move?

Secondly, having listened—I hope—to calls from both the Minister’s own Benches as well as from the other Benches, will the Government institute a verification process at Companies House so that information on corporate ownership can be established with some clarity and accuracy as a mechanism for trying to counter laundering?

Lastly, I want to ask the Minister about a letter sent to me—I believe it was put in the Library—by her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is in his place. It is on the freezing order applying to Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun. In the letter, the Minister referred to a comment he had made that the freezing order applied to overseas banks. He then said:

“I should more precisely have said that the freezing order applies to any UK incorporated banks overseas”.


Could she now give us an assurance that overseas banks that have money in the UK—whether it is through branch arrangements or any other—are covered by those freezing orders, because presumably, they will be very important in the next steps to be taken in the Salisbury poisoning case?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. The Government will publish draft legislation on the creation of a register of the beneficial ownership of overseas companies that own property in the UK or bid for government contracts. This will mean that overseas countries that own or buy property or participate in central government procurement will be required to provide details of their ultimate owners. This will reduce the opportunities for criminals to use shell companies to launder their illicitly gained wealth in London properties, and it will make it easier for law enforcement to track and seize criminal funds. I can confirm the freezing order process for overseas banks so that criminals cannot hide their finances anywhere. Those freezing orders can be applied overseas as well.

The noble Baroness asked me a third question, but because of the noise in the Chamber, I did not quite hear what she said.

[Baroness Kramer]

Just to be helpful, this was a call for verification. As she will know, there is a public register at Companies House, which I greatly approve of, but there is no verification process. This has led to criticism from around the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a fair point. We are at a relatively early point with the public register and it is constantly being checked and reviewed to ensure that the information contained within is accurate.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the list published on 30 January by the US Treasury of 114 officials and 19 Russian oligarchs who are being considered for sanctions regarding Russia’s various infringements against the rule of law and international order in the last seven years. The Government know that many of the people on that US Treasury list, such as Mr Abramovich and Mr Oleg Deripaska, are based in the United Kingdom, are directors of listed companies in the UK and own property and other assets in this country. Will the Government collaborate with US authorities to list the people against whom they have evidence under sanctions, bribery and other regimes, including the fit and proper person test for corporates?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that I will not talk about individuals, but I am sure she will also appreciate that we work with other countries to share intelligence, certainly through the Criminal Finances Act and the unexplained wealth orders. Through these institutions, we will make progress on bringing these people to book who are laundering and hiding their money in the UK.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

What do the Government propose to do about the role of the British Overseas Territories in this area? There has been a lot of controversy about the use of the facilities available there, both for UK residents and those of other countries, and the Government seem rather loath to intervene. Are they reviewing that situation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We made it clear during the passage of the Criminal Finances Act that we would certainly not intervene with legislation but would work with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies to have a register of beneficial ownership with mutual and sometimes almost live-time access for law enforcement purposes.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government fully thought through how the Russians might reciprocate if we take action against any of their citizens in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am sure that they have.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness like to revisit something she said in her opening Statement, which was that Labour in government had done nothing on money laundering? I have just been using Google, which says that the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 were made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I have some recollection that I played a part in that legislation. Perhaps the noble Baroness ought to reflect on what she said earlier, because she is wrong.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure that I may be wrong. I just took issue with the suggestion that we had not done anything.

Online Hate Speech

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, this Government abhor all forms of hate speech. It is clear that what is illegal offline is also illegal online. That is why we are taking a cross-government approach through the hate crime action plan, which will be refreshed this year. We are funding an online hate crime hub, building digital resilience and have successfully worked with industry and partners internationally to agree the removal of illegal content within 24 hours.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, we know that websites and apps have brought many benefits, but at a cost. From my own visits to schools, I am particularly concerned about the hate speech that young people are exposed to online, including through anonymous apps like Sarahah. What are the Government doing to ensure that the age verification checks on apps are effective? How are the Government working with smaller developers to ensure that their platforms are not used to propagate threats and hate speech?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The right reverend Prelate raises a very important issue in the online space for children and young people, because we know that they spend a significant amount of time online. The Government are working extensively with platforms on matters such as age verification, and on things like bullying and trolling online that young people are exposed to that can blight their lives.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, on the basis that the House cannot get enough of the European Union at the moment, I ask whether the Minister has seen the Reuters article dated 19 January entitled “Social media companies Facebook, Twitter, Google’s YouTube have accelerated removals of online hate speech in the face of a potential European Union crackdown”. Does she agree that pressure brought to bear on social media companies by the 28 countries of the European Union is likely to be far more effective than the UK dealing with these companies alone?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope I can assure the noble Lord that in fact the UK does not come from a position of thinking that it can deal with these things alone. It is not just a European problem; it is a global problem. On the European point, one of the key aims of the EU code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online is to increase the proportion of illegal hate speech online that is reported within 24 hours. We fully support that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

When did the noble Baroness last speak to the internet providers and other companies on these matters, to have this disgusting material removed from their sites? As the right reverend Prelate said, small developers are a particular concern. Does she believe that all companies do everything possible to get this material down?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I had the opportunity to speak to internet providers at the G6 when we were discussing this very issue. Both the UK and France were strong on pushing for illegal content to be taken down within 24 hours. I have had other opportunities to speak to internet platforms on the same thing. I agree with the noble Lord that some of the smaller companies maybe do not have the technologies, but they should partner with some of the large companies. Yes, I have spoken on several occasions to them.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I—

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree with me that all Members of this House should be working to eradicate all forms of hate speech? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is desperate to get into this question. Maybe if he has the opportunity to do so, he would explain whether he thinks it appropriate for Members to host the likes of Tommy Robinson within the precincts of this House at a time when there is an increased risk in relation to hate crime and Members of the other House have been receiving hate letters.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I could not agree more with my noble friend that this is not just a governmental or societal issue. As legislators for this country, we have a strong leadership role to take, and it dismays me when I see certain quite extreme people invited into the Palace of Westminster to propagate their hate.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I have been mentioned. I shall stick to the Question. Does hate speech include criticising Islam or any of the world’s great religions as opposed to insulting their adherents? Does our legislation make that distinction and, if not, should it not do so?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There is a clear distinction. Expressing one’s own opinion can offend people; there is a right to offend. However, there is no right to propagate speech that goes to a particular characteristic, whether that be race, religion, disability or sexuality, and promotes hatred against that person.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government consider introducing an education programme for this House so that we can address some of the bigotry that we regularly hear here?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am rather depressed to say to the noble Lord that it is not just here that we hear what I would call religious illiteracy, sometimes going into the area of downright misleading comments; it is within our legislature, the media and online. Through all strands of society, we need to tackle this.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the question on education, will the Minister accept that this will not be resolved merely by technical control of platforms? That may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Can she assure the House that among the things taught at primary schools and upwards is the stark fact that, in the chequered history of this country, the most glorious hours were spent and the greatest sacrifices made in defeating an ideology that at its core had racial, homophobic and political hatred, and that you abandon the history of this country in its greatest hours by indulging in any of those? Our young people should know that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. We need to be clear about opinions and the right to free speech. This country fought long and lost many lives in that very battle against religious and racial hatred.

Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of this statutory instrument is to set passport fees for the first time under the primary charging powers provided by the Immigration Act 2016, which allow the Home Office to reflect not only the costs of considering an application and issuing a passport but any other function of the Secretary of State in connection with UK passports. This includes the costs associated with British citizens leaving and entering the UK.

Over the last year the average turnaround time for the vast majority of the estimated 7 million passport applications that HM Passport Office handled was in the region of seven days. This excellent performance has resulted in high levels of customer satisfaction. The Institute of Customer Service has once again ranked HMPO as the top performing public services organisation in its recent customer satisfaction index survey. The service has improved its customer satisfaction index scores over each of the last five years and, for the first time, also appears in the top-50 list of high-scoring organisations on the customer satisfaction index survey, along with Amazon and John Lewis.

The full costs associated with processing applications and issuing passports are funded by income from fees charged for passport services, but the number of passengers arriving at the UK border continues to rise, with about 130 million passengers currently arriving each year, of whom about 70 million are UK passport holders. This leads to a significant cost for the Home Office, which is currently largely funded by the Exchequer.

Reflecting the costs to the Home Office associated with passengers leaving and entering the UK in passport fees means that we can reduce the burden on the Exchequer and move towards operating on a “user pays” basis for the overall service provided by the Government to UK passport holders. It is obviously important that we recover any additional costs in a balanced way that incentivises the use of a more efficient online application process, which we intend to become the standard passport application channel. So, while we propose to increase most passport fees, people who submit their application online will, for the first time, be charged a lower fee than if they submit their application via post. This reflects the fact that it currently costs more to process a postal application. It also supports the wider commitment to improve online services to meet the needs and expectations of customers who increasingly use digital channels to access government services.

We intend to increase the fees for an online adult passport by only £3, which is broadly in line with inflation. This will mean that the current adult fee will be £75.50, which is still below the £77.50 fee charged for an adult passport between 2009 and 2012. An online child passport fee will increase by the same amount and will be set at £49. Fees for adult and child passports applied for via post will each increase by £12.50 to £85 and £58.50 respectively, to reflect the additional cost of processing postal applications.

With more than 90% of adults in the UK having access to the internet and third parties being permitted to apply on a person’s behalf, the vast majority of people should face no obstacle to applying for their passport online. However, Her Majesty’s Passport Office is developing further help for those who wish to apply online but need some additional advice or support to do so. It is working to deliver an assisted digital leaflet for relevant support groups to enable them to help their clientele to apply online. This will also ensure that their online application route is built in such a way as to be extremely simple to use and to be compatible with various aids, such as screen readers, that people might use to make their interactions with the passport service easier. An advice line is available for those who wish to discuss their requirements with representatives of the organisation.

The Committee will be aware that HMPO provides excellent priority services for applicants who wish their applications to be processed faster, or who prefer to apply in person. It is right that applicants should pay more for a priority service and we intend to move the fees for those services towards full-cost recovery sooner than for online or postal services, given their optional nature and the additional benefits that a customer receives by using them.

Finally, within these regulations we are holding a new and specific power that allows the Home Office to consider waiving fees for replacement passports where they have been lost or destroyed during an incident considered a national emergency or crisis, or where the UK Government have activated exceptional assistance measures overseas. This will allow the Government to ensure that they can provide the appropriate level of support to vulnerable people in emergency situations and crises.

We are committed to ensuring that this Government continue to move towards a position where the border, immigration and citizenship system is funded by those who directly use it. Moving to a position where passport application fees include the costs of UK passengers leaving and entering the UK is part of this. The additional income raised from the proposed increase in fees will help to protect vital front-line services and ensure that we continue to operate a world-class border system. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for explaining to the Grand Committee the purpose behind these regulations this afternoon.

First, I have absolutely no problem with full-cost recovery. Generally speaking, it is not a bad thing to aim for in a variety of services. I have been calling for it for planning applications for a very long time, but the Government have stubbornly refused it. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to mention to her noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that this is a good thing to do, because I cannot get that government department to consider doing even one council pilot on full-cost recovery. They just will not have it—so if the Home Office is doing it, perhaps they will look at a pilot.

Having said that, the rise of £12.50 in one go is a little steep. It may have been better to phase it in over time. Inflationary rises in the cost of services are what we have come to expect and I generally accept them. I do not have a problem with there being two levels of fees, taking account of the costs of processing applications. I get that point. But while I know the Minister referred to the “vast majority”, we are still talking about millions of people who are not in that vast majority. They are not e-enabled for a variety of reasons. They might not have access to a computer or have the skills to use the facilities; equally, they may have a computer and the skills but be in an area where the broadband coverage is so poor that they cannot do it anyway. The Minister might suggest in a moment that they should go to a library, but she will know that the number of libraries in Britain is much reduced from what it was 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. So that will not always be the solution to the problem—again, there is an issue there.

The power to have the fee waiver is sensible and I am very supportive of it. But one thing that the Government should guard against is an issue that exists in a variety of local government services. It is that if you are an ordinary, decent and law-abiding citizen, why do you have to pay more for services just because you are poor? I noticed that that was not addressed in the impact assessment. There is lots about what the Government are going to do, but I cannot find any reference to why somebody poor has to pay more. That issue needs to be looked at across government. It goes across business, too, and other areas, and it irritates me.

I know this is nothing to do with the noble Baroness, but if you go to an area that is not as wealthy as somewhere else, you find that the less wealthy area has no cash machines and that you have to pay £3 or £4 to get your £10 note out. If you are a genuine, ordinary, decent, law-abiding person, why is it that, just because you have less money than someone else or live in a poorer area, you have to pay more? The Government should always be mindful of that as a policy issue across a range of things. Having said that, I have no particular issue with the regulations and I am happy to agree to them.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations and we are broadly supportive of the idea, in particular the move to online and the proposal for a price incentive to encourage people to apply in that way. I am sensitive to the concern about people who do not have online access, but I expect that the Government will take appropriate action to make sure that they are supported.

I wish to make three points. First, if this was the private sector, one would have peak and trough pricing. I should like to know what the peaks and troughs for passport applications are. In the summer there are always problems when people want to renew their passports, and presumably there is a lull in the winter when fewer people are travelling. One of the costs to the public sector, that of retaining peak staffing, could be assuaged if more people are encouraged to apply for their passports when the demand is lower. Have the Government considered that and are there great peaks in the workflow?

Secondly, while I understand that people must pay the cost of issuing a passport, what proportion of the costs of maintaining our borders and our consular activities overseas are we aiming to meet through passport renewal? We all know that there is a national interest in our borders and in having consular services overseas because they perform other functions besides looking after British passport holders, so obviously a key proportion of the costs of those services should come out of general taxation rather than simply being met by people who apply for passports. What proportion of the costs of these services will this measure contribute and what is the Government’s ultimate aim here?

Finally, one thing that Brexit will do is to increase the cost of our borders because it will require extra people to man them. Are those renewing their passports going to have to pay for the cost of Brexit or will it come out of general taxation? My view is that it is the Government who are creating this extra cost; they should therefore pay for it out of taxation. They should not be trying to put the extra costs of Brexit on to those who apply for passports. We should not forget that the economy benefits hugely from tourism so it is in our interest to improve the current border controls, which many people regard as slow and inefficient. What are the Government doing to make improvements in, for example, the flow of people through our border controls, which I am sure they have an interest in since they are now seeking an additional source of revenue to pay for them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I turn first to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. He asked about peak and trough pricing, but then suggested that the extra costs of maintaining the border should be met through general taxation. We have considerably improved the technology and intelligence around our border and we think that we will be able to meet any additional burdens created through Brexit. The fees application regulations before us are not about Brexit; they are about putting in train something that was decided in the Immigration Act 2016, and thus I think before Brexit was even a twinkle in the general public’s eye.

As to what proportion of money will go to the border, we expect that about 40% of the current full cost to the Home Office of UK passengers leaving and entering the UK will be funded by passport fees after these increases. We did consider peak and trough schemes, and looked at variable pricing, but the cost of that would outweigh the benefits.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

Why?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That was the analysis—the costs would outweigh the benefits of doing it.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the £12.50 increase. That of course is for the paper application. The analysis shows that a premium service is more expensive, paper being not the cheapest way to deliver passports or indeed other items. That is reflected in that fee increase. As for full-cost recovery, the noble Lord and I have had many an exchange on such local government matters. He asked me to take it to MHCLG. I will, but I suspect the reason for not having full-cost recovery, as with all local government things, is so that things do not become overpriced. MHCLG always sets them under full-cost recovery, but I shall certainly take that back.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also asked about digital inclusion, particularly for poorer people and people without access to libraries. The Government totally recognise this point. The digital strategy uses 3,000 libraries across England to provide a trusted network of accessible locations with trained staff and volunteers, free wi-fi, computers and other technology. In addition, people can use a friend’s or colleague’s computer to do this. Just because you have not got a computer in your home, that does not disfranchise you from applying online.

I reiterate my support for the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about being charged at cash machines. It is something that really irritates me. I accept that sometimes the only cash machine in a location is a paid-for one and that some of the fees really are quite outrageous. I think that is about it. Have I answered everything or does the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, want to come in?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know this is slightly straying off the regulations before us today, but that irritates me. Like the noble Baroness, I can obviously go somewhere else and not use the machine, but sometimes people do not have that ability or that benefit. It is the same of course with people who have to go to the newsagents to get electricity for their meters. There is an issue here. Why do we accept that if you are poor but law abiding, hard-working and doing your best, you have to pay more for things when other people have them more cheaply? That is a general issue and a general point.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I concur with the noble Lord.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

Before the Minister sits down, can I go back to the two points I raised? I would like to see the peaks and troughs, and presumably monthly figures are available. I would be quite interested to see them. Secondly, I do not think that the Government should easily be able to get away with the assumption that there is no cost from Brexit when it comes to border controls. That is almost fantastical and I do not think anybody would believe it. It would be useful to know how many of the 130 million people going through our borders actually have EU passports as opposed to UK ones. We know the quantity of people who are doing that. I go back to my original question. If you assume that passport renewals will pay for 40% of the border costs and if the costs go up because of Brexit, does that mean we will have higher proportionate passport renewal costs over time in order to keep to that percentage?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cannot answer some of those questions but I know that HMPO will have done an analysis of the figures. I was trying to say, but I do not think I was doing it very articulately, that we have a variety of technological, intelligence and other methods of predicting people crossing the border and of looking for the needle in the haystack, which is the person who is crossing the border illegally or someone who might be on our watch list. Our technology and intelligence have improved significantly. We have e-gates and other methods such as heartbeat monitors at the border. I do not disagree with the noble Lord that volumes might go up, but we have better methods of predicting and detecting illegal crossings of the border. On the other point about numbers, I will write to the noble Lord.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 3.26 pm.

Domestic Violence: Women

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bertin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to women who are victims of domestic violence.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we have already committed increased funding of £100 million to support victims of violence against women and girls, and today have launched a wide-ranging consultation working towards a domestic abuse Bill which seeks views on a suite of proposals to do more still to support victims and target perpetrators of these terrible crimes.

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. While we need to change the narrative on domestic abuse from “Why didn’t she leave?” to “Why didn’t he stop?”, all women fleeing abuse must have a safe place to run to. However, there have been many deeply worrying reports and accusations that the number of spaces for women in refuges is being reduced. Can my noble friend reassure the House that this is not the case? Can she also acknowledge how crucial it is to take early and preventive action, particularly when it comes to supporting the thousands of children who witness abuse on a daily basis?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I can reassure her that the provision of bed spaces has increased by 10% since 2010. We want to be very clear that the current level of refuge provision will not reduce—she may have heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary state that this morning. We have heard the need for sustainable funding for refuges, which is why we are reviewing the way in which refuges and supported housing are delivered. We have asked all the charities and organisations working on the front line to feed in their expertise and come forward with their ideas on how best to deliver this on the ground. The process is ongoing. We have been clear that no options are off the table as we work with them to ensure that women requiring support in their time of need are not let down.

My noble friend was absolutely right when she talked about early intervention to prevent domestic abuse, which is why the domestic abuse consultation is coming about. Children, as she mentioned, are at the forefront of this work. Today, we have announced £8 million of funding to support—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Today, we have announced £8 million of funding to support children who witness domestic abuse and to help with their recovery. I am sorry if I have taken too long, but this is an important subject.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, a major difficulty in some of these appalling cases, in which I have been involved judicially, is that there are no witnesses other than the participants. That is one of the problems of proving the cases. Do I presume that the same standard of proof will prevail nevertheless?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right that, quite often, there are no witnesses other than the participants who mete out such abuse on women; quite often, there are no physical signs of abuse where it involves coercive control and, as the Home Secretary mentioned this morning, economic control of women. That is why we are strengthening the law and why we have gone out to consultation: so that such things may be pursued. It is also why the domestic violence protection order is being introduced.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, from what the Minister has already said it is clear that she fully understands and accepts that domestic violence is a real threat to the well-being and proper development of children. In this consultation, can further consideration be given, in cases where police are called to a home because of an instance of domestic violence and children are present, to requiring that the police automatically contact the safeguarding unit of the local authority to ensure that that the children’s needs are considered as well as those of the adults involved?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that question; he has extensive experience of this area. We have allocated additional funding to the College of Policing to improve training for some of those first-line responders, who in the past may not have been aware of children’s needs, Children who suffer even one incident in which they witness domestic abuse can sometimes be affected for their entire lives.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, in welcoming the Government’s latest initiative on controlling and coercive behaviour, I would highlight the study by the charity Refuge, which found that one in four 16 to 21 year-olds—young people—thought it perfectly normal that coercive and controlling behaviour took place. It is growing, and we know that it is a precursor to physical violence in the end. Will the Minister say a bit more about what is being done to educate young people, and indeed the public—women in general—that coercive, controlling and psychological abuse is not acceptable and that they can seek help?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. Coercive and controlling behaviour may not even be seen as that by the victim—I think that is the point the noble Baroness is making. We can do much through PSHE and educating girls in self-respect. Education in the use of social media and the internet is crucial in this area. The statistics cited by the noble Baroness do not surprise me, and we have much to do to educate our young women.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

Will the Minister consider making severe facial trauma a notifiable condition? These men smash up their wives and then take them to a hospital to be treated. The next time they take them to a different hospital, and the third time yet another hospital. If it were a notifiable condition all this would add up and prosecutions might well take place.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly take back my noble friend’s suggestion. He touches on a very important point: not only might these women be taken to different hospitals each time, but the woman might feel too frightened to report what she has gone through. The whole purpose of some of the Government’s initiatives is that women should no longer feel frightened to come forward and get the support they need through these terrible traumas.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, am I right in thinking that in February 2017 Theresa May announced a domestic violence and abuse Act? We have seen no moves towards that Act, as far as I know. A consultation was promised; more consultation is now being promised. What does this consultation consist of? Do we need more consultation, or should we just get on with it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can assure the noble Baroness that the VAWG commitments that Theresa May made, both as Prime Minister and previously as Home Secretary, are still firm. It is not an either/or in terms of the commitments that the measures in the Bill will cover. They will enshrine a definition of domestic abuse; they will introduce a new domestic abuse commissioner and a domestic abuse protection order that I talked about earlier; and they will include proposals for ensuring that the sentencing in domestic abuse-related offences duly recognises the devastating impact that these offences have on children, as I explained to the noble Lord earlier. Moreover—the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, will be interested to hear this—we will introduce measures to adopt extra-territorial jurisdiction over remaining sexual offences so that we can advance towards ratification of the Istanbul convention.

Russia: Threats to Individuals in the UK

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the House will understand that I am reluctant to be drawn on specific threats to specific individuals, but I assure noble Lords that the Government take very seriously their responsibility to protect the UK, UK interests and citizens and those living in the UK. A Statement on the events in Salisbury will be delivered this morning in the other place by the Home Secretary and repeated in this House this afternoon.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will remember—because she took the Criminal Finances Bill through this House—the concern expressed around the House about the torrent of dirty money from Russia into this country. Beyond that, BuzzFeed estimates that there have been up to 14 suspected murders involving Russia. Now we have the incident of Sergei Skripal. These represent outrageous violations by Russia of the rule of law. Can the Minister tell the House what she thinks is the appropriate diplomatic response?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, my noble friend is slightly straying into Foreign Office territory in relation to the diplomatic response. He is also jumping several stages ahead, because this is an ongoing investigation to which conclusions have not yet been reached. My noble friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of the torrent of dirty money: he was very vocal on this during the Criminal Finances Bill, and that Bill—now an Act—was meant precisely to ensure that criminal assets could not be hidden in, for example, dwellings or property in this country.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will stick to something for which the Home Office is responsible, so that the Minister cannot shift it elsewhere. Have the Home Office, the Home Secretary and the Ministers yet replied to the letter that they received from the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, relating to the BuzzFeed reports about the 14 suspicious—or not so suspicious—deaths, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In relation to BuzzFeed’s stories—that is precisely what they are, media stories—I cannot answer the noble Lord; I do not know the answer to that question, but I will find out and let him know. If people have concerns around the BuzzFeed story, they should put those concerns to the police, because they are dealing with this.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, in the last few years, a number of Conservative Ministers have insisted that the greatest threats to British sovereignty came from Brussels, Paris and Berlin. In the light of the consistent Russian incursions into British sovereignty, does the Minister not agree that Russia provides a much greater threat to Britain’s sovereignty, and that it might make sense to co-operate rather more closely over the long period with Brussels, Paris and Berlin in order to combat that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I repeat my assertion that this Question is about the death of two individuals. No conclusions have been reached by the police as yet. Clearly we are treating it very seriously indeed, but I cannot comment in the early stages of this investigation.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Should it be the case that the hands of the Russian state are all over this attack, can my noble friend assure me and the House—and indeed the nation—that Her Majesty’s Government will ramp up sanctions and other measures against Russia?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Again, we need to establish the facts of this case. The police have not reached any conclusions; there is an ongoing investigation and clearly any actions against this country by other states will be dealt with in the strongest possible terms.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend referred to the death of two people. Was that a slip of the tongue or have these unfortunate individuals now died?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As far as I know, the individuals have not died. The policeman in question is showing evidence of slight improvement this morning.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House would condemn this outrageous and cowardly attack. While I recognise that the Minister cannot speak about the diplomatic measures that might follow if the evidence leads conclusively back to Moscow, does she agree that, in terms of deterring future attacks, one of the most powerful actions would be to show that there can be no impunity from this kind of attack, and that, therefore, bringing the individuals responsible for this to justice would send a very powerful signal?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I repeat that anybody who carries out an attack on a citizen of this country in such a way will be dealt with severely.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there might be merit in having a relationship with Moscow rather than the current sub-zero arrangements, whereby no agencies have any communication that constitutes a relationship?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Again, I cannot speak for the Foreign Office on what relations are currently like, but I can certainly take the noble Lord’s point away.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, are we engaging in any dialogue with Putin to point out that the things going on, such as threats to undersea cables, new nuclear weapons and missiles that can strike accurately all parts of our nation, and hunting down and trying to find our ballistic missile submarines, are not the actions of a modern state in this globalised world, and that this behaviour is just not appropriate?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will know that I speak for the Home Office and not the Foreign Office.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can take all the comments away but at this point in the investigation I cannot comment on some of the things the noble Lord talks about.

Incident in Salisbury

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the incident in Salisbury that has been unfolding over the last four days. First, I would like to pay testament to the continued professionalism, dedication and courage of the emergency services. They have handled this incident with their customary attentiveness, alacrity and sense of public duty. We rely on their response to keep us safe. In doing so, first responders put themselves in dangerous situations on a day-to-day basis. This incident has underlined that fact, which I will sadly return to later.

I will now update the House as far as is possible based on the current facts of the case. At approximately 4.15 on Sunday afternoon, Wiltshire Police received a call from a member of the public who was concerned for the welfare of two people in a park in Salisbury. Emergency services were called and the two were admitted to the A&E department of Salisbury District Hospital. They were a man in his 60s and a woman in her 30s with no visible signs of injury. They are understood to be Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Both remain unconscious and in a critical condition.

I regret to inform the House that a police officer has also fallen seriously ill. The officer was one of the first responders on Sunday, acting selflessly to help others. Officers from Wiltshire Police are providing support to the officer’s family and colleagues.

Our thoughts are with all three victims, their families and friends at what for them will be an incredibly difficult time.

Wiltshire Police began an investigation on Sunday to determine how the individuals fell ill and whether a crime had been committed. They declared a major incident on Monday. On Tuesday, the Metropolitan Police decided that, given the unusual circumstances, responsibility for the investigation should transfer to the counterterrorism police network. Samples from the victims have been tested by experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, who are world-renowned experts in this field.

As Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley announced yesterday, that forensic analysis has revealed the presence of a nerve agent, and the incident is therefore being treated as attempted murder. I can confirm that it is highly likely that the police officer has been exposed to the same nerve agent.

We remain in the midst of a fast-paced criminal investigation, and I will not comment further on the nature of the nerve agent. We must give the police the space they need to conduct a thorough investigation. All Members will recognise that an investigation such as this will be complex and could take some time.

Public safety continues to be the number one priority for the Government. Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, stated yesterday that, based on the evidence we have, there is a low risk to public health. The UK has a world-leading emergency response. It is regularly tested and exercised to ensure we can deliver an effective response to a wide range of chemical, biological and radiological incidents. The three emergency services are well supplied with state-of-the-art equipment to respond to such threats.

The front-line response is supported by world-class scientific research and advice. This ensures that decision-making on the ground, by all agencies involved, is firmly based on the available evidence. This will also support the decontamination activity needed to return the location to normality. The police are working closely with Public Health England, Defra and Dstl. They have cordoned all known sites in Salisbury that were visited by the two initial victims before they became unwell and are taking the necessary measures to protect public safety.

I want to turn to the speculation, of which there has been much, around who was responsible for this most outrageous crime. The use of a nerve agent on UK soil is a brazen and reckless act. This was attempted murder in the most cruel and public way. People are right to want to know who to hold to account but, if we are to be rigorous in this investigation, we must avoid speculation and allow the police to carry out their investigation. As the Assistant Commissioner said yesterday, the investigation now involves hundreds of officers following every possible lead to find those responsible. Some of the leads have come from members of the public. I thank the people of Salisbury for their help and for the calm they have shown over the last four days. I encourage anyone who visited Salisbury town centre and surrounding areas on Sunday afternoon, and who has not yet spoken to the police, to get in touch.

We are committed to doing all we can to bring the perpetrators to justice, whoever they are and wherever they may be. The investigation is moving at pace and this Government will act without hesitation as the facts become clearer. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on Tuesday, we will respond in a robust and appropriate manner once we ascertain who was responsible.

I would like to close where I began—by expressing my sincere thanks to the emergency services and hospital staff for their tireless efforts over the last four days. They have acted with utter professionalism to minimise the risk to the wider public and care for victims of this attack, for which I know we are all grateful. Our thoughts will be with the victims in the coming days. Finally, I thank Members for their understanding that there will clearly be limits on what we can say as the investigation continues. As and when information can be made public, it will be. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and pay tribute to the emergency services, an issue I shall want to return to shortly. We are also concerned for the police officer and the other victims, their families and friends.

I appreciate that the investigation is ongoing, but can the Minister confirm that one of the victims was a Russian citizen who was a British spy or double agent, and that President Putin has in effect made death threats against such individuals? The Government should be telling Parliament as much as they can about such incidents, not as little as they can get away with while hiding behind the fact that there is an ongoing investigation.

The Statement talks about well-rehearsed CBRN procedures, but these are deployed when it is a known CBRN threat. What reassurance can the Minister give that such procedures will be reviewed so that first responders are not put in danger, as the police officer who first attended this incident has clearly been put in danger? The Statement talks about protecting British citizens, but what risk assessments are carried out on Russian citizens living in the UK, particularly those who may have risked their lives to assist the UK in the past?



We on these Benches have repeatedly expressed concern about reductions in Border Force, with reliance placed on electronic gates and remote ports and small airfields not having sufficient protection—a situation that is likely to be made worse if we continue to Brexit.

I understand that hostile foreign powers might produce very convincing fraudulent documents to get their assassins into the UK, but can the Minister speculate how on earth a highly toxic nerve agent was smuggled into the country, assuming it was not stolen from a government facility in this country? Is the Minister satisfied that Border Force is properly funded and that our borders are secure?

I pay tribute to the emergency services but I also pay tribute to the security and intelligence services. In the interactions that I have had with those services, I am confident that we have among the best security and intelligence services in the world. Clearly, however, in an arms race with hostile foreign powers, we need to ensure that those services are properly funded.

I pay particular tribute to the police service—as in this case, they are often the first to arrive at the scene of incidents, never knowing what dangers they face. I wish the officer in this case a speedy recovery. The Government have continued to say that we need fewer police officers because crime is falling, but this incident is just one example of the police being the service of last resort. They have to deal with people in distress and, as we saw last week, respond to people trapped in the appalling weather—nothing to do with crime. These brave police officers never know the sorts of dangers that they are facing and can end up, as this officer has, seriously ill in hospital. Sometimes they give up their lives in order to protect us, as Keith Palmer did nearly a year ago in this place. Yet the Government appear in the eyes of operational police officers to be treating the police service with contempt—freezing their salaries, cutting their pensions and reducing police budgets in real terms. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government are going to reverse their anti-police agenda?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

First, I echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Paddick, in praising our emergency services in the highest possible terms for what they risked to help these two individuals, which of course led to one of the policemen being taken ill. He is still in hospital. It brings into play the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the danger to our emergency services and whether all risk assessments are done to mitigate such injury to the police.

Certainly I can say that in the CBRN area these procedures are constantly reviewed and people are trained to the highest possible level—but in an emergency like this we can all appreciate that sometimes people’s lives will be at risk. People are put in danger, and that is why we have the highest regard for the police. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about police budgets. The police told us last year the number of additional police officers needed to do their job. We feel that in the budget they can attain this year they will have those police numbers—and more—to do the job that they do. That does not detract from the fact that the injury to this police officer, and indeed the death of PC Palmer some months ago, bring into sharp focus the dangers that police put themselves into.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me to reiterate the Government’s determination to bring the perpetrators to justice. I said that in my Answer to the Question earlier and I repeat it now: we are absolutely determined to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether I could confirm that one of the individuals was a Russian spy. I am not in a position to comment further on the victims, other than in the Statement where I confirmed their names.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked about borders, how the substance came into the country and how sure we are of effective border control. I am not prepared to comment on an ongoing operation; I know that the House got slightly exasperated with me earlier, but I cannot. We adopt a rigorous approach to border security, and agencies work together at the border to manage a range of threats, including those posed by terrorism and serious and organised crime. This includes carrying out 100% immigration and security checks at the primary control point, advanced checks where available and intelligence-led targeting at ports. Border Force has at its disposal a range of capabilities to detect, target and identify substances and materials that could cause harm.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

My Lords, Porton is a very famous laboratory and works very closely with the US and other countries. Could the Minister assure us that there are already comparisons and supportive investigations of that sort?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I apologise; did the noble Lord say “Porton”, as in Porton Down?

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

Yes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Obviously Porton Down is very close to where the incident took place. We co-operate in various areas but I do not know whether we are co-operating with the US on this particular issue. I can find out for the noble Lord.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House will understand why the Minister has to be very circumspect when answering questions about the ongoing investigation, and will appreciate that she has told the House that it is a matter of the utmost priority that the perpetrators will be sought out and justice will be served. However, the incident involving the death of Litvinenko does not provide a happy precedent in terms of the time that elapsed between his poisoning and a High Court judge finally concluding that it was the result of deliberate Russian activity. Could the Minister reassure us that, quite apart from the criminal investigation, the Home Office will take responsibility to ensure that all matters surrounding the very serious injuries—we hope that they are just injuries—to these two will be investigated, and that all the lessons from Litvinenko and other questionable incidents will be learned so as to reduce the possibility of recurrence?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can confirm to my noble friend that all matters surrounding this will be investigated thoroughly. I cannot stress that enough, actually. On the question of Litvinenko and lessons learned, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and civilised behaviour. At the time, the Government responded robustly and, following the publication of the report, we made representations in the strongest possible terms to the Russian Government and put in place asset freezes against the main suspects. For my noble friend’s information, we have demanded and continue to demand that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, while appreciating that the circumstances are very similar to—indeed, a carbon copy of—what occurred in the case of Litvinenko, does the Minister agree that, if that be the case, it is not just an attack on a person, but an attack on the sovereignty of this land?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I have said on quite a few occasions this morning, that is jumping the gun as to the conclusion of the police, and I will not do that, as this is an ongoing investigation. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot answer his question fully.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Will my noble friend, in due course, when more information is available to her, consider the risk of such substances, not so much coming in with a spy through a small port or airport, but coming in on a wide-bodied jet into a major UK airport under diplomatic immunity? If that proves to be a possible route, will she take a very firm look, however inconvenient it might be in terms of reciprocity with other countries, at what might come in through our major airports in that way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand my noble friend’s question and completely appreciate what such an event might lead to, should toxic or noxious substances come in through our major airports. The security and detection arrangements at our airports are stronger than ever before, so I hope she is comforted by that. We assess risk at the border all the time. In fact, my noble friend points to the changing risks at the border—risks that perhaps were not there years ago now are, in terms of the various ways in which people can bring things into this country.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, returning to the Litvinenko case, many Members of your Lordships’ House, including me, were involved in the updating of the public health laws that we had in this country, some of which dated back to the previous century. Will the Minister, along with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, report to the House in due course whether those legislative changes were sufficient to deal with what seems at this stage to be a somewhat similar incident?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Certainly, Public Health England worked in conjunction with the police in the immediate aftermath of this event. It is clearly involved in the ongoing recovery of the individuals concerned. I will take that point back and provide an answer for the noble Baroness if I can.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, there appears to be a difference between the Litvinenko case and this case in that, in the former case, a substance was used that left a very clear track and it was very easy to follow through on it. In the current case, however, it appears from what has been said that the nerve agent that was used does not appear to have left a trail, or if it has done, there has been no comment about it so far. It might be that lessons were learned by the perpetrator in the current case from the Litvinenko case. I hope that we will also learn—or have learned—the lessons from our handling of the Litvinenko case, where the initial response, lasting for quite some time, was quite inadequate. Commentators have said that it very clearly left the perpetrators with the feeling that we were a soft touch. Therefore, we will have to be even more robust in our response this time than might have been the case if we had not had that not-so-good example before us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I know that I am going to disappoint my noble friend when I say that the cause of the two individuals’ illness is currently subject to investigation. It is not appropriate at this time to comment or to link it to other cases, but what I can say to my noble friend, in concurring with him, is that there are always lessons to be learned on how we respond to emergency situations and situations of this nature.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to state-sponsored murder, Russia certainly has form. It was not that long ago that Bill Browder’s lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, was killed mysteriously in jail because he had been defending Browder against the Russian Government. As a result of that, Browder had Magnitsky’s law brought on to the American statute book, stopping known enemies bringing their money and themselves into that country. Other countries have followed. This country has not implemented Magnitsky’s law in full. I wonder whether at this stage, given the impunity with which the Russians seem to treat us—not just our referendum but those living here—my noble friend might be inclined to revisit that today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are absolutely committed to promoting and strengthening universal human rights. We talked about this case at length during the passage of the Criminal Finances Act and in debates on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. We want to hold to account states that are responsible for the worst violations. We already have a range of powers similar to those in the US Magnitsky Act which we regularly deploy to protect national security and our financial system.