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.

International Women’s Day: Progress on Global Gender Equality

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That this House takes note of International Women’s Day and the steps being taken to press for progress on gender equality globally.

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

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me one second as I move to my next job, which is a much nicer one.

What a privilege it is to open the International Women’s Day debate. On this important occasion, we come together to recognise and celebrate the achievements of women and girls across the world. This year, International Women’s Day is particularly significant for all of us in this country and in this Parliament. In 2018, we celebrate the centenary of the first British women getting the vote. There is much to celebrate: 100 years on, women are represented at every level of public life; almost a third of all government posts are filled by women; in my own department, the Home Office, over half the Ministers are women, including the Home Secretary; and of course, we have our second ever female Prime Minister.

Just last year, Cressida Dick was appointed the first woman Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, became the first woman President of the Supreme Court. To add to this, Sarah Clarke was chosen to be the first female Black Rod in 650 years and Dany Cotton became the first female commissioner of the London fire brigade. We also saw Jodie Whittaker regenerate to become the first female Doctor Who; are we soon to see the first female James Bond? But although this is a day to celebrate the achievements of women, we must also recognise the challenges and prejudice which women and girls face, both at home and across the world. In the spirit of this year’s International Women’s Day theme we must continue to “press for progress” to accelerate gender equality. We must not be complacent and believe that this struggle has been consigned to the past.

Just as the Suffragettes, Suffragists and their supporters stood side by side in solidarity to fight for the right for women to cast their ballot 100 years ago, we have witnessed in the past year a global movement of women once again coming together to call out injustice. Women from all walks of life have issued a rallying cry, calling time on sexual harassment, violence against women, unequal pay and discrimination. We must capitalise on the momentum of campaigns such as the #MeToo movement to accelerate the drive towards equality for all.

The Government have been making great strides to build on the work of countless Members on all sides of both Houses. The UK has a proud history of playing a central role in securing change for women and girls. We are well respected internationally for our world-leading policy and legislation on equalities. However, outside the UK many women and girls still do not have the opportunities and choices they deserve, whether due to cultural expectations, poverty, conflict, or a combination of all three.

We know that there is a crucial role for us to play to end injustice both at home and abroad, and this country already does great work internationally to ensure gender equality reaches all corners of the globe. The UK was instrumental in securing agreement for dedicated targets on gender equality and women’s empowerment within the sustainable development goals. Right now, as I speak, UK Aid is having a significant impact on the lives of millions of women and girls across the globe. To name but a few examples, UK Aid has supported over 6,000 communities across 16 countries to make public commitments to end female genital mutilation, representing 18 million people. UK Aid has also enabled 8.5 million women to access modern methods of family planning over five years.

Yesterday, the Department for International Development launched its new Strategic Vision for Gender Equality. This sets out the UK’s global leadership in securing, with our partners, the rights of all girls and women around the world, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states and in humanitarian and protracted crises. These are all great achievements but there is still more to be done to achieve gender equality and improve the lives of women and girls around the world.

Globally, one in three women are beaten or sexually abused in their lifetime. We hear so many statistics in this Chamber every day, we risk becoming desensitised to the horrific facts; we must do everything in our power to ensure we do not. Imagine looking at a class of young girls, knowing that one-third of them will face physical or sexual violence over the course of their lives. That cannot go on. Protecting women and girls from violence and supporting victims is an absolute priority, whether they suffer violence in their communities, in relationships or online.

The UK is leading the way internationally but we know there is more to do. That is why we have today announced that we are consulting on our programme of work to tackle domestic abuse. This consultation will shape the response to domestic abuse at every stage, from prevention through to rehabilitation, and reinforces the Government’s aim to make domestic abuse everybody’s business. By consulting, we aim to harness the knowledge and expertise of victims and survivors, charities, specialist organisations and experts, and professionals across policing, criminal justice, health, welfare, education and local authorities—those who deal with these issues every day.

Part of what we are consulting on is a domestic abuse Bill that aims to better protect and support victims, recognise the lifelong impact domestic abuse has on children and make sure that agencies effectively respond to domestic abuse. The Bill will create a domestic abuse commissioner in law to stand up for victims and survivors and hold the system to account. It will also create a new domestic abuse protection order regime to create a clearer pathway of protection for victims; and it will make sure that if abusive behaviour involves a child, the court can hand down a sentence that reflects the devastating lifelong impact that abuse has. The Government have also announced today how additional funding for domestic abuse will be spent. This includes £8 million to support children who witness domestic abuse, £2 million to improve the health response to domestic abuse and £2 million to support female offenders, who are often victims of domestic abuse.

Internationally, we are generating world-leading evidence on what works to prevent violence before it starts through our £25 million What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls programme. We are also contributing £8 million to the UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women. In 2015 alone the fund reached over 1 million people.

Another threat facing many women around the world is unsafe pregnancy. Every two minutes a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth—that is five women during the time I have been speaking. The majority of these deaths are preventable. What is more, hundreds of millions of women in developing countries do not have access to modern contraception. In the summer of 2017, this Government hosted a family planning summit to accelerate global progress and reinforce the UK’s global commitments to give 120 million more women and girls access to contraception. Our ambition is that all women around the world can access quality care, and we will continue to provide bold and brave leadership by developing important strategic relationships and international summits, and generating world-class evidence and research.

To make progress on these important issues, we need to continue the fight for women’s voices to be heard. Equal political representation ensures that parliaments globally represent the needs and issues of their citizens. We support women’s political representation around the world through a number of programmes. For example, in Pakistan, our support to the 2013 election helped many more women to register as voters, with many going on to vote for the first time ever. It also brought national attention to the 8 million women missing from the electoral roll.

Education is crucial if we want to ensure that women and girls are engaged and active in political and public life. In this country, girls tend to perform well at school. In fact, they regularly outperform their male counterparts. However, around the world, 65 million girls aged between five and 15 are not in school—the equivalent of almost the entire UK population. Education is a critical tool to tackle injustice and build a more equal society. It provides girls with the space to develop their own thoughts and opinions, and most importantly their voices. This Government have championed girls’ education across the world. The Foreign Secretary has made girls’ education a foreign policy priority and appointed a special envoy on gender equality to lead this work. Moreover, our country programmes between 2015 and 2017 supported at least 3.3 million girls around the world to get a good education.

Education is important but we know it is not enough in itself to ensure gender equality in the workplace. For women to have equal opportunities to men at work, employers need to take action, and we all need to challenge harmful social norms that can hold women back. We want the UK to lead the way for gender equality in the workplace. Research has shown that companies with more diverse workforces perform better than their counterparts. The employment rate for women is at a joint record high of 70.8%, and we need to build on this to make the most of women’s skills, talents and potential. To tackle the gender pay gap we have introduced world-leading regulations requiring organisations with 250 or more employees to report their gap. These regulations will not only drive employers to calculate and report their gender pay gaps but shine a light on the factors driving the gaps, thereby encouraging and enabling employers to take action to close them.

Working with our international friends is essential in making progress. Over the past year we agreed a roadmap for gender equality with the other G7 countries. We have taken extra steps to strengthen our collaboration with Canada, following the Prime Minister’s visit in Ottawa last September. The Government Equalities Office signed a memorandum of understanding with the All-China Women’s Federation. Next month, women’s empowerment and girls’ education will be among the key issues to be discussed at the Commonwealth summit in London.

I conclude by thanking everyone who will speak in this debate and I look forward to hearing some of the contributions.

Air Guns

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a regime for the purchase, possession and use of air guns.

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

My Lords, the purchase, possession and use of air weapons are already regulated. However, we are reviewing the regulatory position in England and Wales. We asked for the views of interested parties in December and we received a large number of representations from the wider public. We will consider these carefully before deciding how to proceed and we will publish the outcome in due course.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that a growing number of crimes involving air weapons relate to senseless attacks on domestic animals, particularly cats, nearly half of which die as a result of the often horrific injuries? The Cats Protection charity recorded 164 attacks on cats and kittens with an airgun last year, while the RSPCA received nearly 900 calls to its cruelty hotline reporting air weapon attacks on animals. This makes 4,500 attacks in the last five years. Is it time to license these weapons, to ensure that they are possessed only for legitimate purposes by responsible owners, not by those who would cruelly inflict pain and suffering—and often death—on defenceless domestic animals?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As a cat lover and cat owner, I totally sympathise with my noble friend’s Question. The Government take animal welfare very seriously. Anyone who shoots a domestic cat is liable to be charged and prosecuted, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with causing unnecessary suffering. We are increasing the maximum penalty for this offence from six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The number of offences involving air weapons in the year to March 2017 was similar to that in the previous year and there were 64% fewer air weapon offences than a decade previously. Following the recommendation from the coroner in the case of Benjamin Wragge, we are looking at the regulation of air weapons with an open mind. The review will also consider the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where licensing regimes are in place for air weapons.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the honorary president of the Gun Trade Association. Is my noble friend aware that the primary concern of the shooting sports organisations—in this country—is the safety of the public through the responsible ownership and use of all legally held firearms? Does she agree that the firearms Acts deal with airgun issues in piecemeal fashion and need consolidation, so that they can be more easily accessed, understood and obeyed by all?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In answer to my noble friend’s first question, I totally agree and have seen at first hand that responsible use should be at the heart of all country and field sports. I will certainly take back his point about consolidating the various regulations and licensing.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s guidance says that,

“if you have never shot before, you would be well advised to go to a shooting club … and learn … how to handle your air weapon safely and responsibly”.

It advises people to learn about this. Does that not tell us all we need to know about the desirability and importance of licensing?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this country has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. The outcome of the review will be very interesting and the Government will certainly take good cognisance of it in responding to it. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that these things should be as tightly regulated as possible.

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

My Lords, the Minister is correct in saying that we have some of the strongest gun laws in the world. However, they are still not strong enough. In the hands of irresponsible people these weapons can kill; she mentioned the tragic case of Benjamin Wragge. An 18 month-old child in the constituency of my honourable friend Karin Smyth in the other place was injured by an air weapon recently. We need a responsible licensing system, and will the Minister look at the whole question of storage? The current advice is that these weapons can be stored in a locked cupboard, which is not good enough.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and the firearms licensing system is kept under review to make sure that it is not abused by criminals and terrorists and to preserve public safety. In response to the recommendations made by the Law Commission, we strengthened the firearms controls through the Policing and Crime Act. Two new offences were introduced of intending to unlawfully convert imitation firearms—making them effectively deactivated weapons—and making them available for sale or as a gift. We have recently consulted on proposals to prohibit two types of firearm—large-calibre and rapid-firing rifles—and on defining antique firearms in legislation to prevent them being used by criminals.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, what is the age range of offenders when they are caught? If they are youngsters, as I suspect, would it not be a good idea if parents, who often buy these things as presents for their teenagers, are advised that the present should be accompanied by lessons?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In terms of the age range, people using guns have to be over 18. I certainly agree with the noble Countess that anyone who is in possession of a gun for whatever legal purpose definitely should be taught how to use it properly.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, the effectiveness of the law is dependent on the level of compliance. Is it not true that the level of compliance in Scotland is very low?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said in my answer to my noble friend Lord Black, we are certainly looking at the regime in Scotland as part of our review and in coming to our conclusions.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend please tell me how many people were prosecuted last year for injuring animals in this way?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can certainly tell my noble friend about the number of fatalities. I know that the number of these crimes has fallen. I am trying to find the figure, but will have to write to her about that.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, as we know, the Scottish Government do not always get everything right. However, in this case, the law there seems to be working effectively. Why is England having to wait?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I have said twice now, we will certainly look to the regime in place in Scotland as part of the review and in coming to a view.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, police and crime commissioners have brought local accountability to how chief constables and their forces perform, and work hard to ensure that their local communities have a stronger voice in policing. As the Home Affairs Select Committee recognised in its March 2016 report, PCCs are here to stay and their introduction has worked well.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

Is my noble friend the Minister aware of what has prompted this Question, namely the Wiltshire Police investigation into Sir Edward Heath and the way in which it was conducted by the then chief constable, Mr Mike Veale? The police and crime commissioner has the power, and some would say the duty, to commission an independent inquiry but, for reasons I do not understand, he has set his face against doing so. Does this not make a mockery of the policy that chief constables are accountable—and should be seen to be accountable—to their commissioner? There really is a need for an independent inquiry.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly understand why my noble friend has brought this Question forward today, and I understand the frustration felt by him and other noble Lords on this matter. A few noble Lords came to see me about this issue and I wrote to them outlining the position on it. I also wrote to the PCC of Wiltshire and I will outline the position again today. Under Section 79 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the Secretary of State has issued a policing protocol which PCCs and chief constables must have regard to when exercising their functions. This protocol provides scope for a PCC to commission an independent review into a force’s investigation to assist that PCC in their statutory duty of holding the chief constable to account. I could not have made the Government’s position on this clearer, and thank my noble friend for his Question.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the Minister back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, on 11 October, when he said that,

“the Chief Inspector of Constabulary is the person to whom a Government should look for an inquiry to begin into whether this has been done properly”.—[Official Report, 11/10/17; col. 231.]

Was that followed up by the Minister? She has now come up with an alternative of a protocol, which I understand can probably be ignored by police commissioners if they choose to do so. Finally, is not the reality that this Government have stood by, watched and witnessed the total destruction and trashing internationally of the reputation of a former Prime Minister? That is quite outrageous.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I recall the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Blair. If I recall, I answered at the time that the route for such an inquiry would be through the PCC. The position is no different now. The police are operationally independent of the Government and that is the route.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, may I make it absolutely clear that the Government can take further action? The whole legal system is based on the Government intervening at a higher level when something is transparently wrong. Give or take the fact there are protocols, I am quite sure that the Government could commission a judge-led inquiry into this appalling report on Sir Edward Heath. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours; it is a disgrace and pathetic that the Government have not acted long ago.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I repeat the assertion that I made earlier: the police are operationally independent of government. On this matter it would be for the PCC, perhaps in conjunction with the chief constable, to commission an inquiry.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, did the PCC reply to the Minister’s letter, and what was the reply?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I know that the PCC has been in correspondence with other noble Lords. I am reluctant to talk about individual correspondence at the Dispatch Box. I am sure the noble Lord will understand why that is, but I think he will also understand why this Question has come up again today.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to broaden this out. Can the Minister explain how party-politically aligned police and crime commissioners can effectively hold chief constables to account? We have a situation at the moment with Labour and independent police and crime commissioners blaming central government real-terms cuts to police budgets for reductions in policing services, while Conservative police and crime commissioners toe the Conservative Party line, claiming that budgets are being maintained. Who is really to blame for drastic cuts in police numbers? Is it inefficient chief constables or is it the Government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there certainly are PCCs who stand under party-political banners. There are also independent PCCs. I do not think that there are any Lib Dem PCCs, although the Lib Dems are very good at political campaigning. It is for PCCs to hold their chief constables to account. It is also for police and crime panels to scrutinise PCCs, and they do.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, people can always bring out individual reasons why such a move is not the best, but HASC in 2014 and 2016 praised the advent of the police and crime commissioner for visible accountability and leadership on the appointment of chief constables. That is for the individual forces to do through an open and transparent appointment process.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 January be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.

Motion agreed.

Security and Policing: Facial Recognition Technology

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for that and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward this debate on a very important issue, now and in the future. I start by stressing the importance the Government place on giving law enforcement the tools it needs to prevent terrorism and cut crime. However, it is also important to build public trust in our use of biometrics, including the use of facial images and facial recognition technology.

Biometric data is of critical importance in law enforcement, and various forms and uses of biometric data have an increasingly significant role in everyday life in the UK. However, the technology is of course changing rapidly. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about gait analysis technology, voice technology and other types of technology that are rapidly emerging. We are committed to producing a framework that ensures that organisations can innovate in their use and deployment of biometric technologies, such as facial recognition, and do so, crucially, in a transparent and ethical way. Noble Lords have talked about ethics in this as well. Maintaining public trust and confidence is absolutely key; achieving this involves a more open approach to the development and deployment of new technologies. We remain committed to ensuring that our use of biometrics, including those provided to law enforcement partners, is legal, ethical, transparent and robust.

In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, we will publish the Home Office biometrics strategy in June this year, as I outlined to the Science and Technology Committee. The strategy will address the use of facial recognition technology. There is ongoing work to implement last year’s custody images review, which provides a right to request deletion, and we are planning improvements to the governance of police use of custody images and facial recognition technology.

Automatic facial recognition, or AFR, is a rapidly evolving technology with huge potential, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and others powerfully illustrated. There have been some suggestions that there is no guidance on police use of AFR. The Home Office has published the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, which sets out the guiding principles for striking a balance between protecting the public and upholding civil liberties. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Evans, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans all pointed this out, as did others. Police forces are obliged under the Protection of Freedoms Act—POFA—to have regard to this code. Similarly, the Information Commissioner’s Office has issued a code of practice, which explains how data protection legislation applies to the use of surveillance cameras and promotes best practice. However, to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, we believe that more can be done to improve governance around AFR and we are discussing options for doing this with the commissioners and the police. I am very pleased to see the really good practice already being followed in this area, such as the work being done by South Wales Police, which I will go into in a bit more detail in a few minutes. We are working to ensure that this is consistently applied across all areas by tightening up our oversight arrangements of AFR.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others talked about the retention of custody images and whether that was illegal, following the 2012 High Court ruling. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also alluded to this. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives police the power to take facial photographs of anyone detained following arrest. The regime governing the retention of custody images is set out in the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information and statutory guidance contained in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice. The Police Act 1996 requires chief officers to have regard to such codes of practice. In addition, the Information Commissioner and Surveillance Camera Commissioner promote their respective codes of practice.

Following the custody images review, people who are not subsequently convicted of an offence may request that their custody image be deleted from all police databases, with a presumption that it will be unless there is an exceptional policing reason for it to be retained, such as if an individual has known links to organised crime or terrorism. Assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has links to neither—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

Not yet.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Not yet—you heard it first at the Dispatch Box. I suggested some months ago that the noble Baroness should request that her image be removed. I am assuming that she has now done so and that, therefore, it is in the process of being removed. But the police should automatically review all the custody images of convicted people that they hold, in line with scheduled review periods set out in the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice to ensure that they retain only those that they need to keep.

On the point about illegality suggested by a couple of noble Lords, the court did not rule that there was an issue with applying facial recognition software to legitimately retained images. Following the CIR, we are clear that unconvicted people have the right to apply for the deletion of their image, with a presumption in favour of deletion. However, the police, as I said, have the right to retain an image in the cases that I outlined.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about oversight. This is a very good question which was brought out by the Science and Technology Committee. Noble Lords also talked about the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group. In line with the recommendations of the triennial review of the Home Office science bodies, the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group’s remit has been extended to cover the ethical issues associated with all forensic identification techniques, including, but not limited to, facial recognition technology and fingerprinting. The Government are exploring the expansion of oversight of facial recognition systems. They are also seeking to establish an oversight board to enable greater co-ordination and transparency on the use of facial recognition by law enforcement. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we are consulting with stakeholders such as the NPCC, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Biometrics Commissioner.

Noble Lords mentioned two specific instances: Notting Hill and the South Wales Police. I think that I have time to talk about both events. In 2016-17, when facial recognition technology was piloted at the Notting Hill Carnival, the Metropolitan Police published this on its website. This is in line with the fact that it is a pilot and that it is important that police let people know about it. The public were informed that the technology involved the use of overt—not covert—cameras, which scan the faces of those passing by and flag up potential matches against a specific database of custody images, and that the database had been populated with about 500 images of individuals who were forbidden to attend the carnival, as well as individuals wanted by police who it was believed might attend the carnival to commit offences. I must stress that this system does not involve a search against all images held on the police national database or the Met systems. The public were also advised that if a match was made by the system, officers would be alerted and would seek to speak to the individuals to verify their identity, making arrests if necessary. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who talked about mismatches with BME people, even between men and women. That goes back to the point that this is evolving technology and in no way would it be used at this point in time other than in a pilot situation.

South Wales Police took a very proactive approach to communications in its pilot. In addition to the more formal press briefing notices, it used social media in the form of YouTube and Facebook to explain the technology to the public and publicise its deployment—and, most importantly, it published the results. In its publicity, South Wales Police has been very aware of concerns about privacy and has stressed that it has built checks and balances into its methodology to make sure that the approach is justified and balanced. It consulted the Biometrics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, all of whom are represented on the South Wales Police automatic facial recognition strategic partnership board, and gave them the opportunity to comment on the privacy impact assessment that was carried out in relation to the pilot. This resulted in a very positive press response to the pilot. The force also published a public round-up of six months of the pilot on its Facebook page.

I will go on now to the PIA, which links to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the Government doing a privacy impact assessment. I can confirm that the Home Office biometrics programme carried out privacy impact assessments on all of its strategic projects to ensure that they maximised the benefits to the public while protecting the privacy of individuals and also addressed any potential impact of data aggregation.

The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Kennedy, asked about arrangements for the storage of images. The Police National Database is based in the UK. Images are taken from custody systems run by each police force and then loaded on to the PND.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether passport and driving licence photos were available to police. They are not used by the police when deploying facial recognition technology. They may be used under specific conditions for other policing purposes.

I thank noble Lords once again for their participation in this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Yarl’s Wood: Hunger Strike

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

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

My Lords, the Government take detainee welfare extremely seriously. Any detainee who chooses to refuse food and fluid, for whatever reason, is closely monitored by on-site healthcare professionals. There are a number of established ways in which detainees can make representations on their individual case and about conditions of detention. Individuals are detained only for the purposes of removal from the UK.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, about 400 people are detained at Yarl’s Wood detention centre, nearly all of them women. One Algerian woman came to this country at the age of 11 and has been here for 24 years. It was not until she applied for a passport that she was found to be undocumented and detained at Yarl’s Wood. She has been there for three months so far. Does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons for the hunger strikes is that people are being detained unfairly, unreasonably and indefinitely? One woman has described it as like being kidnapped, not knowing when it will end or what will happen to her. The Minister will, of course, say that the Home Office detains people only for as short a period as possible, but at the end of 2017 one person had been in immigration detention for four and a half years. Does the Minister agree that it is time to introduce a 28-day limit on immigration detention, except in wholly exceptional circumstances?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There may be a multitude of reasons for refusing food and fluid. As the noble Lord has pointed out, they may be in protest against their detention but there may also be dietary and religious reasons.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is true; it is not a simple issue. The noble Lord pointed out that detention was not indefinite for the case he outlined. In fact, the lady had been detained for three months. Every four months, a detainee is reassessed for immigration and bail. It is fair to say that 92% of people in detention do not stay there for more than four months. The notion that someone might be detained indefinitely simply is not there. The purpose of detention is removal; it is not to detain indefinitely.

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

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that rape is a form of torture and that victims of sexual abuse, including rape, are being held at Yarl’s Wood, despite government policy stating that victims of torture must not be detained for immigration reasons? What action will the noble Baroness take to enforce the policy of her Government in this respect?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right about victims of sexual abuse being deemed vulnerable adults. Stephen Shaw made recommendations about the treatment of vulnerable adults in detention. As the noble Lord will know, we are working with NGOs on the definition of torture, because the courts challenged us on it, but we are alive to some of the vulnerable people who might be in detention for a number of reasons, including sexual abuse.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, after my noble friend Lord Hylton and I visited Yarl’s Wood, we reported back to your Lordships’ House that we had seen significant progress and improvements there. Does the noble Baroness not agree that there is a danger that that could be jeopardised for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, describes? There are some 400 people there now, some feeling a sense of real desperation. The shadow of fear hangs over them, such as the woman who came here as an 11 year-old girl and is now 35 years of age. After living in this country for 24 years, she has been taken to Yarl’s Wood. Does the noble Baroness not agree that it is worth looking at specific cases, such as of those now on hunger strike? Can she tell the House any more about the health and well-being of those currently on hunger strike and whether they have proper access to legal aid and representation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right that individual cases should always be treated sensitively. If the noble Lord could outline an individual case for me, I will certainly take it back. The last thing we want for people in detention is for them to be refusing food and fluid. Legal representation is available to people. There are specific rules on how we should treat sensitively those with mental health problems, vulnerable adults and traumatised people in detention.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the point about indefinite detention is not that the person is never released; it is that they do not know when they will be released. We know from the evidence given to Stephen Shaw, including from a psychologist, that this has a devastating impact on mental health. Will the Minister now ask Stephen Shaw, who is reviewing how his recommendations are working, to widen his brief to include whether indefinite detention should be ended, which is in line with what happens in other countries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Lord, 92% of people in detention do not stay there for more than four months. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s point about people with mental health issues in detention. In addition to the implementation of the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy in September 2016, NHS England commissioned the Centre for Mental Health to carry out research to support the Mental Health Action Plan, which is part of the Government’s commitment to review and improve the provision of mental health services in immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities. We appreciate the stresses and strains that this can have on people’s mental health. As the noble Baroness says, it follows one of the major recommendations of Stephen Shaw’s Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons. We have now invited Stephen Shaw to carry out a short review in the autumn to assess progress against the key recommendations for action in the previous review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention. The work will be completed in the spring and its findings laid before the House.

[The Lord Bishop of Salisbury]

Can the Minister inform the House what percentage of those held in immigration detention centres are released back into the communities from which they came and what that tells us about the appropriateness of the numbers being detained in that way?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In terms of releasing people back into the community, somebody would be in detention only for the purposes of removal, and immigration bail would be in line with a risk assessment done on that person. I do not know the exact percentages. I will see whether they are available and, if they are, I will write to the right reverend Prelate and put a copy in the Library.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government’s policy on achieving pretty swift removal when someone should be removed and the operation of their guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention are not working? Surely one reason for the action taken by women in Yarl’s Wood, which is the sort of response one might expect from people who feel unjustly imprisoned, is that detention should be detention and not imprisonment, which is how it is regarded. Will the Government not reconsider looking at the mechanisms used in the Scandinavian countries, where work is done successfully within the community to encourage people to leave when they have no right to be there, and applying a more humane and, frankly, more effective policy such as the ones we see in those countries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not have concerns that the Government’s policy is not working. The policy is most certainly that action to get people out of detention should be taken as quickly as reasonably possible, but a reason for someone remaining in detention for longer than they might have done is that they might themselves have launched further appeals against their removal. The reasons for detention are many and complex, but the purpose of detention is to enable swift removal.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we need a little balance on this subject? In particular, does she agree that the credibility of the immigration system depends on being able to remove people who no longer have a right to be in this country? Clearly there will be difficult cases and clearly they must be dealt with in the best possible way, but fundamentally we have to be able to remove people or the entire credibility of the system disappears.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The purpose of detention is necessary removal. I also take his point that, although we need to deal sensitively with people who may be traumatised or have mental health problems or other reasons for being vulnerable, the ultimate aim of the detention centre is removal.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018.

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

My Lords, this fees order is to be made using the charging provisions in Sections 68 to 70 of the Immigration Act 2014 and its purpose is to make only a relatively small number of changes to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which, along with the Immigration and Nationality Fees (Amendment) Order 2017, remains in place. The changes are needed to ensure that the charging framework set out in secondary legislation for immigration and nationality fees remains current and supports plans for the next financial year.

The Committee will wish to be made aware that there is an error in the draft order and its Explanatory Note. Following further review of the section of the order that deals with circumstances in which a fee may be set in respect of the provision of biometric identity documents, it has been identified that the change we were seeking to make by Article 2(4)(a) has no effect. This is because of the way in which the related legislation—the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008—operates. The intention was to permit the Home Office to charge a fee when a person fails to collect their biometric residence permit within the required time limit, which is not intended as a penalty or fine, but is in line with fees charged for replacement biometric residence permits, where the department incurs extra production costs. However, the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations do not in fact require an application in those circumstances—hence there is no service for which a fee could be charged. Though the Explanatory Note states that Article 2(4)(a) does have an effect, this is incorrect. Before such a change can take effect we will need to amend the Immigration (Biometrics Registration) Regulations 2008. In the interests of transparency for all, the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum has also been amended to clarify the issue.

The 2016 order continues to set out the overarching framework and maximum amounts that can be charged for immigration and nationality functions over the current spending review period, as previously agreed by Parliament. Changes made by this order are intended to clarify existing powers in connection with entry clearance to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man. The order will update powers to charge fees when offering premium services in relation to the islands and also make clear that the current definitions of a “sponsored worker”, “unsponsored worker”, “sponsor” and a “certificate of sponsorship” apply in respect of applications to the Isle of Man. Two further changes will delete obsolete provisions, for which no fee is currently set within regulations.

The 2016 order also permits a fee to be set for the acceptance of applications at a place other than an office of the Home Department. This provision currently allows the Home Office to charge a fixed fee when delivering an entirely optional, premium service to enrol biometrics at a place of convenience to service users. Under plans to modernise services offered, the order will now allow for fees to be set at an hourly rate. This will provide greater flexibility and allow a fee to be charged at a level that is commensurate with the time taken to deliver such services.

To be absolutely clear, this change does not affect the Home Office’s basic services, for example, as provided to applicants who enrol their biometric information at a local post office. The amendment is applicable only to those who seek to enrol their biometrics at a place of convenience that they themselves want to specify.

Finally, the order will also update the power to charge for services offered on behalf of certain Commonwealth countries and British Overseas Territories, where such services may not be offered within consular premises.

To recap, we are seeking to make a small number of changes to the 2016 order and maintain the framework for immigration and nationality fees. We are not seeking to make changes to the overarching charging framework, nor to the maximum fee levels that were agreed by Parliament and set out in the 2016 order, other than in respect of the premium service fee about which I have spoken. Individual fee levels to be charged over the course of the next year will be set by new regulations that are due to be laid before Parliament in March 2018.

I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order and for her confession about the error in it. We have a fundamental objection to the approach that the Government are taking to move to a position where fees are charged to cover the costs of providing border, immigration and citizenship services. The security of the UK border is one of the most important mechanisms by which the Government keep us safe and we should not expect those who want to do the right thing and apply for leave to remain and, eventually, citizenship, some of whom come to this country as destitute refugees, to be forced to fund what is fundamentally the duty of the Executive.

Having said that, I understand that these regulations make only one change to the overall fee structure, where the biometric capturing part of an application comes to you and where the eye-watering fixed fee of £10,500 is to be replaced by an extraordinary hourly rate of £2,600. Will the Minister confirm that this is not the actual cost of providing the service, but a fee based on what the market can bear? Will she also explain why the Home Office is not maximising the profit from such a service to enable it to reduce fees in other areas, rather than giving this lucrative money-earner away to a private company? I understand that there needs to be two people to carry out the biometric capture, but if this is purely on the basis of cost recovery are we paying Home Office officials £1,300 an hour? Can I apply for a vacancy?

We support these regulations as far as they go and we look forward to the main event, when the actual fee levels for 2018 are set out in the forthcoming regulations next month. I give the Minister notice that those regulations are likely to be a completely different ball game.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for setting out the reasons behind this order and for the clarification she gave in her opening remarks. I too was fascinated by the level of fee charged changing from an overall maximum fee of £10,500 to a fee of £2,600 per hour. Some of us have occasionally done per diem work—I suppose we are not unused to it now—but our eyes can only water at the thought of such an hourly rate. It would be good to know where the justification comes from.

I also add to a point made by the noble Lord, which is that essentially a commercial provider is going to do the work. Although the Home Office will retain full oversight and jurisdiction, the relevant fee will relate to the cost associated with the commercial partner travelling to the location of choice as requested by the applicant. The mind boggles. Can they go anywhere? Without detracting from the quality of the people who will be applying for this service, it makes one wonder what exactly the commercial provider is there to do. Is this rate seriously based on the cost of that commercial provider? Does it build in a profit? It must. I must say that the Explanatory Memorandum begs more questions than it answers on those details.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Paddick, who both asked questions about the rather lucrative £2,600 hourly rate. I absolutely understand why the noble Lords asked that question. It is not the actual fee; it is the maximum. The actual fee will be set in regulations later this year, but it is important to understand what the amount is modelled on. It is modelled on existing costs and location of customers using the current service. The average time is two hours and for security reasons it requires two members of staff actually to do the work. It is a maximum amount and that needs to be borne in mind in the context of what noble Lords are asking.

As regards the organisations working with vulnerable people suggesting that the destitution assessment applied to those who make applications on the basis of private and family life is too stringent, our policy states that a fee waiver will be granted to applicants who demonstrate with evidence that they are destitute. That may well bring in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate by way of evidence, which I am sure that a refugee or asylum seeker could, that they meet the terms of the fee waiver policy. It is open to such individuals to re-apply for a fee waiver on the evidence that supports their request.

The question about the supplier ensuring that they give value for money and account strictly for the time taken in each case was a very valid one. The Home Office’s chosen commercial provider will be required to demonstrate a clear and transparent method of calculation of the service cost, based on the applicant’s location, to deliver an on-demand service. This is an on-demand and premium service to a customer at a location of their choice. The contractual clauses will require that partner to undertake open book accounting to allow visibility of costs and charges for services provided to customers, which in turn will be reviewed by robust commercial oversight. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s two very simple questions.

Motion agreed.

Cannabis-based Medication

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue a special licence under Section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to enable the family of Alfie Dingley to import cannabis-based medication to treat his epilepsy.

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

My Lords, the Government have a huge amount of sympathy for the rare and difficult situation that Alfie and his family are faced with. My right honourable friend the Policing Minister has undertaken to meet Alfie Dingley’s family as quickly as possible. Both he and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary want to explore every option within the current regulatory framework, including issuing a licence.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

I express my sincere thanks to the Minister for that very positive reply. I understand from it that Ministers are now united in wanting to find a legal way to support Alfie Dingley so he can receive medical cannabis in order to lead some sort of life.

I want to set out the main reasons why Ministers have to succeed in this case. The Minister knows that Alfie Dingley was suffering from a very unusual epilepsy mutation. This was causing 3,000 epileptic fits a year, 250 a month, under UK-prescribed medication which will probably lead to psychosis, damage to his internal organs and early death. Alfie Dingley and his family spent five months in the Netherlands, where Alfie was treated by a neuro-paediatrician with cannabis drugs. During that period, Alfie Dingley suffered one or possibly two seizures per month, down from 250 per month in this country.

On the legal question, the Minister knows that under Section 30 of the 1971 Act, licences can be provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

I express my profound thanks to the Minister and her colleagues in the other place for their absolute commitment to find a way under the law to enable this poor six year-old child to continue his life.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for her positive words acknowledging the way forward that I and other Ministers want to find for this little boy. As she said, this little boy has a very rare form of epilepsy. I am very pleased to hear that his seizures have reduced and very much look forward to a positive way forward being found.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that the Government successfully licensed heroin-assisted treatment, or diamorphine-assisted treatment, which is prescribed in a synthetic form to people who do not benefit from or cannot tolerate substances such as methadone. We know that the success rates for that group of patients in terms of health, social care, incarceration and money saved show that there is real benefit from heroin-assisted treatment. Why cannot that simply be put in place for cannabis-based treatment as well?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

With respect, I point out to the noble Lord that the Question is specifically about the medicinal use of cannabis for a very specific case. The noble Lord is probably straying on to the legalisation of drugs in a controlled way. I am not going there today because I have not been asked a question about it, but I have had many debates about it and the Government remain of the view that such drugs remain illegal.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment to explore every option. Is she aware of the legal opinion from Landmark Chambers making it clear that there is an exception under Section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which allows that a licence for possession of a controlled drug can be permitted for medical purposes? Will she make use of that exception to save this little boy’s life?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Well, I hope that I made it absolutely clear that we would explore every legal avenue that we could, and that both the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary would look at all legal avenues within the regulatory framework, so I hope that she takes comfort from that.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Could my noble friend take a look at the history of how controlled drugs have been used for medical purposes? I am not somebody who would support deregulation of drugs but, as a small girl, I was offered the option when a school dentist extracted a tooth of having either gas or cocaine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

That was many years ago, but that was the choice. Of course, up and down the country today, hospitals will be dispensing opioid drugs to patients, many of which are derivatives of opium, and I really do not see why, if the legal framework is there to do it, we cannot get on and do it rather quickly.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes precisely the point that I perhaps did not make as well, which is that within the legal framework we have to explore the art of the possible to bring such drugs forward that will help people in situations similar to Alfie’s. Before I became a politician, I worked extensively with people who had multiple sclerosis, and I know that Sativex has been produced in aid of alleviating spasticity in suffers of that illness.

[Lord Dear (CB)]

My Lords, can I move away from the sad case that we have heard about and those particular circumstances and move to a more general point on that issue? Does the Minister agree that the time has now come for a complete and urgent look at the situation? As many of us know, cannabis is currently included in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act as a drug with no medicinal value, yet that view has been roundly rebuffed by a number of countries in the world. I cite, for example, 12 EU countries—shortly that number will grow to 15—29 states in the USA, Canada, Israel and so on, all of which use cannabis under medical supervision. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look at this issue and at the licensed medicinal use of cannabis in these circumstances?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has nicely segued through the general use of it back to the medicinal use, but I concur with him in saying that we must keep laws like this under review. Certainly, the WHO is currently reviewing cannabis as a whole, and the constituent parts of cannabis. The noble Lord is right that a number of states in the USA have actually legalised its use. We are keeping a very close eye on the outcome of that review and will take a view on it in due course.