Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the proposed Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill will include measures to prevent violence against women and girls as well as criminal justice measures to deal with perpetrators.

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

My Lords, this Government are committed to a rigorous and comprehensive consultation on the proposed domestic violence and abuse Bill to identify all the legislative and non-legislative measures that we can take to truly transform our approach to domestic abuse. The Government recognise that it is critical to look beyond criminal justice measures and also to focus on what we can do to prevent abuse and violence in the first place.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am reassured by it. Could she give an indication of when the Bill will be before us? Has she consulted the various women’s groups which have expressed anxiety up until now about the narrow scope of the Bill? For instance, Women’s Aid has made a number of recommendations about mandatory relationship and sex education. Has she consulted it? When will we be looking at the Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to make the point about engagement with the various women’s groups and charities. Of course, they are the best placed to advise us on the Bill going forward. We are putting out a consultation document and I fully expect that the types of groups she talked about will be fully engaged with it. Other issues will also come out in the consultation process so we will have a well-informed Bill when it comes forward.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, what progress has been made in tackling attacks with acid? Acid attacks cause horrific injuries and have a dreadful impact on people’s lives.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right to raise this issue; it has been quite prevalent in recent months. Back in July, the Government put in place an action plan to tackle the use of acid and other corrosive substances in violent attacks. It was based on four key strands: ensuring effective support for victims, effective policing, ensuring that the relevant legislation is understood and applied, and working to restrict access to acids and other harmful products.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, lesbians, gay men, trans men and trans women are also victims of domestic violence and are often very isolated. Can the Minister assure the House that, alongside other people’s, their access to services is always taken into consideration in the consultation on the strategy and will be safe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a very valid point about LGBT victims of domestic abuse, because, of course, they are not exempt from the violence that people suffer. Any LGBT group can make representations to the consultation, and we have a national helpline for LGBT victims of domestic violence. We also made it clear in our national statement of expectations on domestic violence that we expected anybody who needed help to receive it, irrespective of their sexuality or, indeed, their sex.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Women’s Aid has raised concerns about the suggestion that refuges be localised. Will she ensure that the proposed Bill provides for mandatory nationwide access to refuge services and resources for all those who seek refuge?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was part of the conversations on local delivery that took place in DCLG. We made it clear that we thought local areas were best placed to deliver the services appropriate to their locality, and set out the national expectations for delivery at a local level. We also made it clear that if things did not work out locally, we were prepared to legislate. However, the national statement of expectations seems to be playing out quite favourably.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, as Victims’ Commissioner, I have not been privy to the preparation of the Government’s consultation on the domestic abuse Bill. Therefore, will my noble friend the Minister say whether the Bill will include statutory provisions to prevent perpetrators of abuse pursuing their victims through the family courts?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes a very good point about victims of domestic violence who quite often face further intimidation and, I would say, abuse as perpetrators seek to pursue them through the family courts. Certainly, the MoJ is considering this issue in relation to victims of domestic violence in the family courts.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, can I assume that the proposed Bill has adequate measures to deal with the acid attacks as raised by the noble Baroness?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, the Government are certainly looking at how we can prevent acid attacks, in a domestic violence setting or otherwise. The consultation will be an opportunity for people to bring forward suggestions about what should be included in the Bill.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, while recognising that faith communities have serious issues of domestic violence abuse within themselves, does the Minister also recognise that they contribute a great deal to tackling it through organisations such as the Mothers’ Union, Restored and Kahrmel Wellness, and that today, 16 days of global action begin to try to raise awareness of domestic violence and abuse?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I absolutely recognise that and praise the Church for what it does not only in raising awareness of domestic violence but in giving advice, sometimes extremely effectively, to those affected and, indeed, to perpetrators.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the fragile state of the prison and probation services, can the Minister please tell the House what additional measures the Government propose to give the criminal justice system to enable it to deal with perpetrators?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

One of the suggestions that has been made, which the Government are actively considering, is to recognise in law, in sentencing, the terrible effect that domestic violence has on children. There could be as few as one witness of domestic violence but it will not only affect the rest of their lives; there is also a societal effect, and this cycle of abuse can go on.

Domestic Violence: Police Resources

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nye]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of police resources available to support victims of domestic violence.

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

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has noted in recent inspections that forces have protected dedicated resources to support victims of domestic abuse. The number of police referrals, prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse has increased significantly since 2010. However, this Government are committed to doing more still and in this Session will publish in draft a landmark domestic violence and abuse Bill to better protect and support victims and to bring perpetrators to justice.

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. With police numbers already at a 35-year low and with no new money for policing announced in last week’s Budget, the situation is in a potentially perilous state, according to HM Inspectorate. Requests made under the “right to ask” part of Clare’s law must be made in person at a police station, but the number of public-access stations is being reduced as part of the cuts being imposed on local authorities. Are the Government therefore exploring other options, such as online requests, for victims of domestic abuse who want to find out whether their abuser has a violent past?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can certainly make inquiries for the noble Baroness about online requests for such information. However, HMICFRS has noted improvements in the overall police response to victims of domestic abuse since the publication of its first report in 2014. In addition, the Home Office is putting forward £1.9 million for specialist training for police to obtain a licence to practise so that they are equipped to deal with vulnerable people in such situations.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, the majority of victims are women but today, sadly, there are many men who suffer domestic violence. Do we have enough places for them to go to?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes a good point. The breakdown of victims of domestic violence is thought to be about 96% women and 4% men. We have a helpline for men and, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, earlier, anyone who is a victim of domestic violence should be able to have the help they need.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will remember that earlier in the year during the passage of the Policing and Crime Bill, some amendments were tabled to strengthen the victims’ code. At the moment, there is no mandatory requirement on the police and other agencies to provide support—it is an entitlement for victims—and, despite being promised back in January that there would be extensive and wide consultation on strengthening it, we still have no sight of that consultation, let alone any proposals from the Government. When are we going to see specific proposals from the Government to strengthen the support for victims?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness further updates on that matter. Yes, she raised it in the Bill, and the Home Secretary is chairing an oversight board to ensure that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and national police leads are doing all that is required of them in dealing appropriately with victims of domestic violence.

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

My Lords, what are the Government doing to provide safe places outside the community where the violence occurs? Many community minorities have always, as a matter of course, closed ranks to defend whatever their position is, and many women need somewhere that is safe for them which is not in the same city but somewhere else.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness raises the reason why we set out the national statement of expectations rather than a nationally led programme of delivery for domestic violence. In terms of safe places outside the community, that means that a lady or a man who needs to flee their community to go to somewhere else will be sure of a safe place. I would like to move to a position where a lady did not need to flee her community in order to be safe but where the perpetrator was dealt with effectively.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, many women in the justice system are victims of domestic violence, which is one of the root causes of their offending. Is this taken into account when decisions are made to prosecute?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

All circumstances are taken into account when someone is prosecuted. My noble friend is right about the cycle of abuse. Someone who is a victim of domestic violence will go on to have perhaps depression or other mental health problems, or drug or alcohol problems, which may lead to crimes being committed. Certainly within the justice system this cycle of abuse and crime needs to be unlocked.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness have discussions with her counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland so that we can learn from experience and exchange ideas in this United Kingdom? In that context, will she welcome the visit by the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament to Westminster today?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly welcome the visit of the Justice Committee. As to whether we have lessons to learn, I am sure that we have lessons to learn from each other in examples of good practice. However, I say to the noble Lord that I am proud to stand here, given what this Government have done over the past seven years to help victims of domestic violence.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, many children and young people suffer from domestic violence after seeing pornography and other violent acts online. What are the Government doing to encourage the police to go into schools and talk to young people about this kind of crime and the support that victims would get from them if it is happening to them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, sex and relationship services within schools are a good forum in which to discuss not only what healthy relationships look like but what unhealthy relationships look like. Online providers are alive to what sort of material is suitable for viewing by children, and the Home Secretary is working with CSPs to improve their response to it.

Stalking

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consult on establishing a register of serial stalkers.

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

My Lords, the Government are fully committed to tackling stalking and we are working with partners to look at ways to strengthen the management of serial offenders. Stalking perpetrators can already be captured on the dangerous persons database and can be managed by the police and the probation service under the multi-agency public protection arrangements. We are not convinced that a new register would improve how serial perpetrators are managed and are concerned that this approach may risk a disjointed police and offender management response.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. Is she saying that she does not see the need for a separate register despite all the evidence from Paladin? Surely the Minister would agree that serial stalkers and the perpetrators of domestic violence should be subject to orders that place a positive obligation on them to change their behaviour. They should be included on the ViSOR database and thus MAPPA to ensure that they are subject to robust and proactive supervision, monitoring and tracking, which would give better protection to victims.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am fully supportive of a register for all the purposes that the noble Baroness has set out. The point I made in my first Answer was that running several registers might lead to a fragmented approach by the police and the probation service. One register capturing both violent and serious sex offenders enables the police to deal more effectively with the types of people that we all want to capture.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, contrary to what I think the Minister was moving towards saying, the House may know that currently there is no existing framework which can track or monitor serial stalkers. Might that be addressed in the domestic violence Bill and will measures to tackle serial stalkers be included in it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I have said, we will be going out to consultation very shortly on the domestic violence Bill. On stalkers, the noble Baroness will know about Clare’s law, which enables people to find out whether their partner has a past in this area. I would recommend to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords who are interested in the Bill to take full part in the consultation.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I know that all noble Lords will welcome the Government’s commitment to an additional £17 million fund to tackle violence against women and girls. What impact does my noble friend expect the proposed domestic violence and abuse commissioner to have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am pleased to be able to say to my noble friend that the domestic violence and abuse commissioner will have a significant impact on domestic violence. Certainly the commissioner will stand up for victims and survivors, raise public awareness of the issue, monitor the response of statutory agencies and local authorities and, I hope, drive further improvements in tackling domestic abuse.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lord, aside from the risk of multiplication, what are the difficulties in just expanding the sex offenders register?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On expanding the sex offenders register, someone has to be violent and a sex offender to go on to it. A stalker might be neither violent nor a sex offender. However, if someone becomes violent and a menace both to society and to their victim, they would be captured on the sex offenders register.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, some ethnic minority women have got married under the nikah ceremony and have subsequently found themselves in a domestic violence situation, but they have no redress because they have not had their marriage registered by a registry office. Will this be tackled in some sort of register too?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am so glad my noble friend brought up this issue because it is one I have seen evidence of on many occasions: a woman thinks she is married—she may have come from another country to get married in this country—but she is not and her marriage is not recognised in law. If she is a victim of domestic violence she is in a very vulnerable position indeed. I hope my noble friend brings this up in the course of the consultation on the domestic abuse Bill.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her answer to my letter of 23 October and for her suggestion that we should meet again. However, I do not understand what has changed between the meeting my colleagues from Paladin had with Sarah Newton the Minister on 11 September, when she said that a register would be part of the consultation, and the statements given by the noble Baroness today and in her letter to me saying that the register would not be part of such a consultation. What has changed in the last two months?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, nothing has changed. There is every opportunity for the noble Baroness to put that forward through the consultation. At that point—I am sure she would agree—I was loath to have a fragmented system of registration. Let us continue to discuss it because we both want the same thing.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, women who have been stalked and have been victims of domestic violence keep having to move. I had a case recently of a woman who moved five times to get away from her abuser. Several times information about where she had moved to was not passed on to the relevant constabulary and she was left vulnerable to her stalker. What safeguards are in place to ensure this does not happen?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Going back to the national statement of expectations, we need a joined-up approach for local authorities and across police forces so women are not found by their stalkers or abusers. In fact, women should not have to flee at all and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

Randox and Trimega Laboratories

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Police Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“I thank the right honourable Lady for her Question. I apologise that it is me, rather than the Home Secretary, and congratulate HRH Prince Henry of Wales on his engagement.

In January, Randox Testing Services informed Greater Manchester Police that there may have been manipulation of test results at its laboratories. Ongoing police investigations have since uncovered that the same manipulation may have also occurred at the Trimega Laboratories. Criminal investigations by Greater Manchester Police into alleged manipulation of toxicology results are still ongoing. Therefore, the House will understand why I must be cautious in my response. However, I want to reassure Members on all sides of the House that this matter is being treated with the utmost seriousness.

The Government’s immediate priority is to work with the police and the independent forensic science regulator to establish the full scale of this issue and the potential impact on the public. A Written Ministerial Statement on the matter was laid in the House by me on 21 November. Public confidence in the justice system is absolutely vital, which is why the Written Ministerial Statement noted that my honourable friend the Justice Minister will oversee the review process for individual cases and will work closely with other Ministers from departments impacted by the outcome of this investigation.

Retesting in criminal cases has been under way since May and is ongoing, and the police, CPS and coroners will be contacting affected individuals once the outcome of the retests is known. The Department for Education has also asked all local authorities in England to review their records to establish whether they commissioned tests from Trimega and consider whether any action is necessary to fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities. It is unlikely that the decisions about the welfare of children will have been taken solely on the basis of toxicology results. However, the Department for Education has asked local authorities to assure themselves that the rationale for decisions made about children’s safety and well-being is not now called into question.

The Government fully understand that people may have concerns about family cases, which is why the Ministry of Justice has also created an application form that allows people to apply to court to have their cases looked at free of charge if they are concerned. Government officials will continue to work with the police to monitor the scale of this pressing issue as further information emerges. Furthermore, as Greater Manchester Police’s investigation continues, we are considering what lessons can be learned to ensure that public confidence in forensic science is upheld”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question in the other place. Perhaps she can explain, when she comes to respond, why the Police Minister chose originally to make his announcement in a Written Statement on 21 November, and why it has taken an Urgent Question to get an Oral Statement from him. One would have thought that what we are hearing about was sufficiently serious to justify the Minister in the Commons coming to the Dispatch Box without being summoned there through an Urgent Question.

Regrettably, the 2010 Government abolished the Forensic Science Service. Perhaps this is one of the chickens coming home to roost as a result. Randox Testing Services, one of the companies involved, has been quoted as saying:

“We are now well advanced in developing a foolproof testing system which would enhance the security of our operations in the future, to provide the necessary level of confidence”.


Surely a fool-proof testing system being in place would have been part of the terms of its contract to do this work. Will the Minister confirm that that really is not the case, as the statement from the company seems to imply?

Randox has also said that it will be paying the cost of retesting. What about the cost of the police investigations that have been taking place for some time, of the local authority investigations referred to in the Statement and of the costs of obtaining legal advice? Who is going to be paying these? Is it the company, the police, local authorities or the individuals affected? The Police Minister’s Written Statement of 21 November said, in relation to the other company, Trimega—which is now part of Randox:

“The number of Trimega’s customers affected … is unknown. It may never be possible to identify them all, due to poor record-keeping practices”.


Is Trimega in breach of its contract, as a result of having poor record-keeping practices? If so, what are the potential penalties?

Finally, the information that has been given indicates that most drug tests from the current company, Randox Testing Services, between 2013 and 2017 are being treated as potentially unreliable. Will Parliament be told of the extent to which such drug tests—and those done by Trimega in the years before 2013—are found to have been unreliable and the precise impact this has had on individuals? That is the least that the Police Minister now owes Parliament.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He is absolutely right: it is indeed a very serious matter and the Government do not take it lightly. He will have noticed that the WMS of 21 November was a fulsome Statement and there is now an investigation going on which will take some time. He questioned the abolition of the FSS. The alleged manipulation predates the closure of the FSS, which was never involved in family cases—that was Trimega. He talked about Trimega being part of Randox. I must make it clear that at this point Trimega was not part of Randox. Trimega closed and Randox set up: yes, the two individuals were employed at Randox, but Trimega was not part of it.

The noble Lord also asked whether the numbers would ever be known. They may never be known accurately, but we think that approximately 10,000 tests were affected. The nature of what allegedly went on here means that we can never make this fool-proof because, as the regulator herself said, no reasonable set of quality standards could be guaranteed to prevent determined manipulation by skilled but corrupt personnel.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, while we agree that determined, skilled and corrupt practitioners in the public sector could equally have produced such a scandal, and that the performance of the former public sector Forensic Science Service was not without criticism, what lessons have already been learned, and what new safeguards are already in place, to prevent this happening again? The Minister said that the Government are considering what lessons can be learned, but surely there are immediate steps from the initial findings that can be implemented—and should have been implemented by now. What action have the Government already taken to reassure the public?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord points out, because this is an ongoing investigation the full lessons of what went on here cannot be appreciated yet. However, the Government have, of course, taken steps since January 2017, when we found out about this alleged manipulation. We supported the police’s initial response to the news of manipulation, including officials advising of the impact on the marketplace and the regulatory impact. The Home Office advised the NPCC in the creation of the silver groups working on the operating protocol for forces, the forensic service providers and the CPS. We facilitated the agreement of commercial terms between Randox and the independent testing companies and sat on the technical advisory group of forensic experts which advised the gold group on the retesting strategy.

As the Statement said, the DfE has liaised with local authorities in England to review their records and will consider what action needs to be taken from there. The MoJ, together with the DfE and HMCTS, has worked closely with the police to identify family and civil court cases where a toxicology test was undertaken by Trimega. We have advised the NPCC gold group and the team that is working with the CPS to ensure that the appropriate disclosure is made. We have asked all forensic toxicology suppliers to review their practices and have asked the Forensic Science Advisory Council to consider a number of measures to strengthen provisions to reduce the risk of malpractice and to help rapid detection. We are supporting the UKAS internal review and have briefed the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Family Division of the High Court. We have done a lot since we found out about this.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, a number of years ago, I visited the College of Policing’s Harperley Hall site in County Durham, which led on forensic science at the time for the college and did an absolutely extraordinary job. Will the Government look at how that was run and seek to emulate it in the future?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is right that at times like this it is absolutely essential that we look at places and areas of best practice to see what we can learn. Of course, the full extent of that learning will not be forthcoming until a full investigation has been undertaken. However, I totally take her point that best practice has to be emulated.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I completely take the Minister’s point about the difficulty in finding a system that is totally fool-proof, but it would seem from what we have heard that the vetting of personnel could well be the central issue here. Could she tell us, or possibly write to us about, how that vetting might be improved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord may be right that the vetting process was not sufficient. However, as the regulator said, no reasonable set of quality standards could be guaranteed to prevent this determined malpractice. We are talking about two corrupt people—perhaps there may be more—and the regulator herself said that it would have been very difficult to prevent it.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, anyone who has practised in the criminal courts, whether prosecuting or defending, will know that confidently given forensic evidence is enormously persuasive when it comes to the issue of guilt or innocence, which is the responsibility of juries. Is not the terrible feature of this that some may have been wrongly convicted or offered pleas of guilty when the evidence put to them simply did not amount to sufficient evidence to justify conviction? This is a serious breach of the civil rights of those who have had to appear in the criminal courts.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right to point out that confidence in the system is absolutely crucial, and that to date, great confidence has been put in this area of science. He makes the point about somebody being wrongly convicted. It is rare, but not impossible, for someone to be wrongly convicted—but someone is rarely convicted on one piece of evidence, although it is not impossible. That is why the high-priority cases are being looked at and why, in the course of retesting, those sorts of issues will be established. However, the noble Lord is right to point it out.

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Disabled Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 24th November 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am the last to have the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on succeeding in getting his Bill before this House for a second time. He is obviously well loved and very much agreed with, and I thank him for the opportunity that it gives me to restate this Government’s commitment to protecting disabled people and improving their life choices and opportunities through the Equality Act 2010.

It is now more than 20 years since Parliament first enacted the duty on specified people to make a reasonable adjustment, a duty that is now enshrined in the Equality Act and remains a cornerstone of the protection offered to disabled people. It achieves the delicate balance of taking account of the rights of disabled people and what is reasonable to expect of those under a duty to make an adjustment.

Specifically, the duty establishes the need for service providers to adjust or provide a reasonable means of avoiding a physical feature, such as a ramp instead of steps to access a building. There is also an expectation that the service provider should take a proactive approach in considering what reasonable adjustments are needed and not simply wait to be asked. However, the legislation recognises the need to strike a fair balance and requires a service provider only to make adjustments that are reasonable in all the circumstances of a particular case, as my noble friend pointed out. For example, if the cost of making the adjustment would put the service provider out of business or would require them to break another part of the law, such as the rules on listed buildings, that clearly would not be reasonable. I should add that while a service provider is able to decline unreasonable requests, if an adjustment is reasonable then it must be made. An adjustment is either reasonable or it is not, to state the obvious.

Separately, Part M of the Building Regulations 2010, which pertains to the access to and use of a building, also requires reasonable provision to be made for wheelchair users to gain access to new buildings or when an existing building undergoes significant alternation or extension. I hope this explanation of the existing duty will help the House to appreciate that the Government believe that the existing legislation is already comprehensive in this regard.

We have every sympathy for the aims of my noble friend’s Bill but there are a couple of areas that I am concerned about, and I will go through those for the benefit of noble Lords. The Bill would essentially remove the reasonableness filter and require service providers, without exception, to provide ramps for wheelchair users wherever there was a single step that was less than six inches in height in a public area. The Bill would also take no account of the cost of the installation, although my noble friend has given his estimate of what the cost might be. Secondly, the existing provisions in the Act are deliberately and carefully worded to allow for greater scope in considering how best to solve the particular problem being experienced by the disabled person.

In Committee my noble friend talked about doing a deal with the Government over some sort of order-making power. Of course we will consider his Bill carefully if he wishes to change it into a different form, but he will be aware of our reservations that this would inevitably result in numerous calls to have other specific remedies spelt out in the Act or in further technical guidance. As my noble friend will appreciate, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot address the many and varied needs of our citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, also talked about using a regulating power in the Act to increase compliance. I note and very much agree with the noble Lord’s thoughtful speech. As I have made clear, we are looking carefully at the enforcement of the Equality Act, and we will consider his advice very carefully.

The House of Lords Select Committee report The Equality Act 2010: The Impact on Disabled People found that despite the problems described with the statutory provisions on reasonable adjustment, the flexibility that they provide is necessary for their effectiveness. The Government agree on that point. When my noble friend’s Bill was last debated in this House, much concern was expressed that it was all very well to refer such matters to the courts but there are fundamental flaws in how the Equality Act is enforced, especially by disabled people. It is a fundamental principle of anti-discrimination law, accepted by successive Governments since the 1960s, that such law is enforced by the individual who thinks they have suffered discrimination. There are good examples of disabled people enforcing the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Noble Lords will no doubt have heard of the case of Mr Paulley, who has successfully enforced the Act on many occasions. While individual rights of enforcement must remain, the Government have been looking carefully at whether the enforcement of the Equality Act can be improved.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission recently conducted a pilot scheme to increase access to justice for people experiencing disability discrimination. It offered disability groups more than £25,000 of legal assistance in over 100 cases to provide direct routes to justice for disabled people facing a range of problems. The commission is also increasing its legal capacity to advise on discrimination cases.

The Equality and Advisory Support Service equality and human rights helpline refers specific cases that have been raised with it to the EHRC for possible enforcement action. We can ensure that cases of the sort with which my noble friend’s Bill is concerned are included in those earmarked for EHRC referral. In addition, our manifesto earlier this year committed to strengthening the enforcement of equalities law so that private landlords and businesses who deny people a service are properly investigated and prosecuted, and we are considering how best to take that forward.

I shall home in on specific issues that noble Lords have raised. My noble friend Lord Blencathra made the point that the Equality Act does not provide adequately for disabled people who need differential treatment. The 2010 Act is specifically designed to recognise that disabled people may need to be treated differently to achieve equality in three main areas: it is not discrimination to treat disabled people more favourably; there is a duty to make reasonable adjustments, as I have outlined; and the Act prohibits discrimination because of something arising from disability that is unique to disability.

My noble friend made the point that disabled charities are not allowed by law to help with enforcement proceedings. There is nothing in law to prevent disabled charities assisting disabled people to enforce the Equality Act, either financially or with practical support. It is true that charities cannot bring cases on a disabled person’s behalf, but they can help the disabled person to bring them. The EHRC is currently working with disabled charities to assist with individual legal cases, as I mentioned earlier.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, brought a new case of taxi accessibility before us with her story of a taxi driver who did not realise he had a ramp in his boot—he had obviously never looked there. As she will know, the outstanding provisions in Section 165 and 167 of the Equality Act 2010 were commenced in April 2017, ensuring that wheelchair users receive the assistance that they need when travelling in taxis and private hire vehicles designed as wheelchair-accessible. She might remind the next taxi driver of that fact, if he needs to be reminded. The Equality Act powers mean that local licensing authorities may choose whether to publish a list of designated vehicles, and so apply the Section 165 requirements—to provide appropriate assistance and not to charge extra—to their drivers. We have strongly encouraged authorities to do this and will continue to do so.

The noble Baroness also pointed out that the ramp will not necessarily help you to get into a shop: you may still be unable to use it, depending on the steepness of the slope. I agree that many technical issues underlie the concerns that the Bill is intended to address. For example, for 12-inch steps, a ramp would need to be 6 metres long. We need to be very careful that we do not agree new legislation which extends across whole sectors only to find that this legislation, in turn, is unsatisfactory due to unforeseen circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Haworth, said that disability should not have been included in the Equality Act 2010 with other characteristics. I can only note that the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, recommended, and both Houses of Parliament voted for, full harmonisation of all protected characteristics at the time. The Act in fact preserved and added to the protection for disabled people already in the Disability Discrimination Act.

My noble friend Lord Holmes asked what steps the Government have been taking to address accessibility issues. Building regulations now require all building works to consider and allow access for everyone, including wheelchair users. All new-build public buildings must make reasonable provision to be step free.

My noble friend Lord Shinkwin mentioned an issue that he is pursuing with the EHRC and my right honourable friend in the other place. Without talking about individual cases, I can only restate that the roles and responsibilities given to board members of the Equality and Human Rights Commission are matters for the commission itself, and the Government have no power to reinstate the EHRC’s disability commissioner role.

The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, asked whether we are considering access to religious buildings. Building regulations of course come with statutory guidance on use of buildings, and that includes religious buildings—for example, mosques and churches. New buildings of this kind must comply with guidance, independent standards such as BS 8300, and provision on spaces between buildings, for external spaces and for the approaches to and use of facilities in buildings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, talked about access to licensed premises. Licensed premises are where many of us choose to socialise, and are therefore an important part of our daily lives. Too many of these venues are difficult for disabled people to access. I mentioned that the Conservative manifesto in 2017 made a commitment to review disabled people’s access and to amend regulations if necessary to improve disabled access to licensed premises, parking and housing. We will consult disabled people’s organisations better to understand the extent of the problem from the perspective of those with a broad range of disabilities, their carers and families. We will work with the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, which gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability, and representatives of the licensed trade to explore what practical measures can be taken. We hope that this will result in significant improvements for disabled people without the need for additional regulations.

However, we agree with the recent House of Lords committee report on the Licensing Act 2003 that adding to the licensing objectives is not the answer. The 2003 Act and the licensing objectives must be able to address issues that apply to licensable activities and are therefore unique to licensed premises. The 2003 Act should not be used to control other aspects of licensed premises. This would be outside the scope of the licensing regime and contrary to the principles of better regulation.

The noble Baroness also noted that the EHRC has gone backwards on disability. As I said, the EHRC’s disability committee came to an end by statutory order provided for under the Equality Act 2006. The EHRC now has a disability advisory committee and is working extensively with disability groups. I am sure that the chair of the EHRC would be happy to write to her about this.

My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—no, I would not have been cross had the noble Baroness left and would have still responded to her—made the point that the Equality Act 2010 shows how legislation can be undermined by unintended consequences. I take note of what my noble friend and the noble Baroness said, and I talked about unintended consequences earlier in my response. However, we need to be careful when we try to mend the unintended consequences of legislation by passing more legislation.

My noble friend’s speech also underlined the importance of effective enforcement of existing laws, and it is that which the Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission is now looking to improve. My noble friend also talked about wheelchair access for employees as well as service users. The Equality Act already imposes a duty on employers to take reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and prospective employees. That would include making places of work wheelchair accessible whenever it is reasonable to do so. That duty is frequently enforced in the employment tribunals, not only in relation to wheelchairs but for other adjustments as well.

Finally, my noble friend made the point that Brexit is not an opportunity to race to the bottom. The Government have already made a commitment to retain all the protections in the Equality Act as we leave the EU, and we will have committed to tabling a government amendment before Report stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, whereby Ministers bringing in Brexit-related legislation will make statements on its consistency with the Equality Act. I hope that, on that positive note, I can assure noble Lords of this Government’s continued commitment to protecting the rights of disabled people. Our concerns for the Bill do not affect that and our belief that every disabled person has the right to have an adjustment made for them that is reasonable.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we also have some concerns about the national security and defence exemption. My noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Paddick have their names to a clutch of amendments to Clauses 24 and 26, and to a replacement for Clause 25—these are Amendment 124C and so on. These amendments essentially probe what Clause 24 means and question whether the requirements for national security certificates are adequate.

My first question is: what processing is outside the scope of EU law, and so would fall within Part 2 and not within Parts 3 and 4, the parts of the Bill on law enforcement and the intelligence services? Many of these amendments were suggested to us by Privacy International and one or two by Big Brother Watch. Those who know about these things say that they do not know what certificates exist under the current regime, so they do not know what entities may benefit from Clauses 24 to 26. However, Privacy International says that in their current form certificates are timeless in nature, lack transparency, are near impossible to challenge and offer overly broad exemptions from data protection principles, and all the rights of the data subject.

My second question is: what are “defence purposes”? That phrase does not feature in the interpretation clause of the Bill. The Explanatory Notes, in referring to the 1998 Act, refer to the section about national security. Is defence not a national security matter? There are very broad exemptions in Clause 24 and Privacy International even says that the clause has the potential to undermine an adequacy decision. For us, we are not convinced that the clause does not undermine the data protection principles—fairness, transparency, and so on—and the remedies, such as notification to the commissioner and penalties.

I note that under Clause 25(2)(a), a certificate may identify data,

“by means of a general description”.

A certificate from a Minister is conclusive evidence that the exemption is, or was, required for a purpose of safeguarding national security, so is “general description” adequate in this context?

Amendment 124L proposes a new Clause 25 and is put forward against the background that national security certificates have not been subject to immediate, direct oversight. When parliamentary committees consider them, they are possibly tangential and post hoc. Crucially, certificates are open-ended in time. There may be an appeal but the proposed new clause would allow for an application to a judicial commissioner, who must consider the Minister’s request as to necessity and proportionality—words that I am sure we will use quite a bit in the next few hours—applying these to each and every provision from which exemption is sought. The Committee may spot that this could owe something to the Investigatory Powers Act.

Amendment 137P takes us forward to Part 3, the law enforcement part of the Bill. Clause 77(5) gives individuals the right to appeal against a national security certificate, but individuals will not know that they have been subject to such a national security certificate if the certificate itself takes away the specific rights which would require a controller or a processor to inform individuals that there was such a restriction in effect against them. The whole point of a right to access personal information and, on the basis of that, the right to appeal against a restriction, does not seem to us to work. The amendment provides for informing the data subject that he is a subject to a certificate.

Amendment 148C is an amendment to Part 4, which is the intelligence services part of the Bill. Clause 108 refers to an exemption being “required” for the purposes of national security. Our amendment would substitute “necessary”, which is a more objective test. I might require something to be done, but it might not be necessary. It is more subjective. Amendment 148D would—I note the irony here—require a certificate because Clause 109 seems not to require it, although the certificate itself would be conclusive. Finally, Amendment 148H is our response to the Constitution Committee, which recommended that the Government clarify the grounds of appeal for proceedings relating to ministerial certificates under Clause 109, other than judicial review. We have set out some provisions which I hope will enable the Minister to respond to the committee’s recommendation.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments on the scope of the national security and defence exemptions in Parts 2 and 4 and the provisions in respect of national security certificates.

Amendments 124A, 124M and 124N relate to the exemption in Clause 24 for defence purposes. Amendments 124A and 124N seek to reinstate wording used in the Data Protection Act 1998 which used the term “combat effectiveness”. While it may have been appropriate for the 1998 Act to refer to “combat effectiveness”, the term no longer adequately captures the wide range of vital activities that the Armed Forces now undertake in support of the longer-term security of the British islands and their interests abroad and the central role of personal data, sometimes special categories of personal data, in those activities. I think that is what the noble Lord was requiring me to explain.

Such a limitation would not cover wider defence activities which defence staff are engaged in, for example, defence diplomacy, intelligence handling or sensitive administration activities. Indeed, the purpose of many of these activities is precisely to avoid traditional forms of combat. Yet without adequate provision in the Bill, each of the activities I have listed could be compromised or obstructed by a sufficiently determined data subject, putting the security, capability and effectiveness of British service personnel and the civilian staff who support them at risk.

Let me be absolutely clear at this stage: these provisions do not give carte blanche to defence controllers. Rights and obligations must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Only where a specific right or obligation is found to be incompatible with a specific processing activity being undertaken for defence purposes can that right or obligation be set aside. In every other circumstance, personal data will be processed in accordance with GDPR standards.

Amendment 124M probes the necessity of the applied GDPR’s article 9 exemption for defence purposes. Article 9 provides for a prohibition on processing of special categories of personal data. If we did not modify the application of article 9 for defence purposes, we would be hampering the ability of the Armed Forces to process certain personal data, for example, biometric data. This could have a detrimental impact on operations and other activities carried out by the Armed Forces.

I firmly believe that it is in the UK’s national interest to recognise that there may sometimes be a conflict between the individual’s right to have their personal data protected and the defence of the realm, and to make appropriate provision in the Bill to this end. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the publication of security certificates. National security certificates are public in nature, given that they may be subject to legal challenge. They are not secret and in the past they have been supplied if requested. A number are already published online and we will explore how we can make information about national security certificates issued under the Bill more accessible in future. She also asked about the timelessness of these certificates. They are general and prospective in nature, and arguably no purpose would be served by a requirement that they be subject to a time limitation. For example, in so far as a ministerial certificate allows the intelligence services to apply a “neither confirm nor deny” response to a subject access request, any certificate will inevitably require such a provision.

Amendments 124C, 124D, 124E, 124F, 124P and 148E seek to restrict the scope of the national security exemption provided for in Parts 2 and 4 of the Bill. I remind the Committee that Section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 contains a broad exemption from the provisions of that Act if the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. Indeed, Section 28 provides for an exemption on such grounds from, among other things, all the data protection principles, all the rights of data subjects and all the enforcement provisions. Although we have adopted a more nuanced approach in the Bill, it none the less broadly replicates the provisions in the 1998 Act, which have stood the test of time. Crucially, under the Bill—as under the 1998 Act—the exception can be relied upon only when it is necessary to do so to protect national security; it is not a blanket exception.

It may assist the Committee if I provide a couple of examples, first in the context of Part 4, of why the exemption needs to be drawn as widely as it is. Clause 108 includes an exemption from Clauses 137 to 147 relating to information, assessment and enforcement notices issued by the Information Commissioner. It may be necessary for an intelligence service to apply this exemption in cases of extreme sensitivity or where the commissioner requested sensitive data but was unable to provide sufficient assurances that it would be held securely enough to protect the information.

In relation to the offence of unlawfully obtaining personal data, much intelligence work involves obtaining and then disclosing personal data without the consent of the controller. For example, if GCHQ intercepts personal data held on a foreign terrorist group’s computer, the data controller is the terrorist group. Without the national security exemption, the operation, although authorised by law, would be unlawful as the data controller has not consented. Similarly, reidentification of deidentified personal data may be a valuable source of intelligence if it can be reidentified. For example, an intelligence service may obtain from a computer a copy of a list of members of a terrorist group who are identified using code names, and from other sources the service believes that it can tie the code names to real identities.

The need for a wide-ranging exemption applies equally under Part 2 of the Bill. Again, a couple of examples will serve to illustrate this. Amendment 124C would mean that a controller processing data under the applied GDPR scheme could not be exempted from the first data protection principle as it relates to transparency. This principle goes hand in hand with the rights of data subjects. It cannot be right that a data subject should be made aware of a controller providing information to, say, the Security Service where there are national security concerns, for example because the individual is the subject of a covert investigation.

To take another example which touches on Amendment 124D, it is wholly appropriate to be able to limit the obligation on controllers under article 33 of the applied GDPR to disclose information to the Information Commissioner where the disclosure would be damaging to national security because, say, it would reveal the identity of a covert human intelligence source. As is the case under Part 4, this exemption would be applied so as to restrict the information provided to the commissioner, not to remove entirely the obligation to report appropriate details of the breach.

I hope that this has given the Committee a flavour of why the national security exemption has been framed in the way that it has. As I have indicated, the Bill’s provisions clearly derive from a similar provision in the existing Data Protection Act and are subject to the same important qualification: namely, that an exemption may be applied in a given case only where it is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in her opening remarks, the amendments in this group relate to the data protection principles as they apply to law enforcement processing.

I will deal first with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, before moving on to the others. Amendments 129G and 129H would add a requirement that processing under Part 3 be transparent as well as lawful and fair, thus mirroring the data protection principles set out in Parts 2 and 4 of the Bill. There is a very simple explanation for the difference of approach. The GDPR and the Council of Europe Convention 108, on which the provisions of Parts 2 and 4 are based, are designed for general processing. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate in that context that the processing of personal data should be transparent. Of course, that data protection principle, as with certain others, will apply subject to the application of the exceptions provided for in Parts 2 and 4, including where necessary to safeguard national security. At first glance, I accept that it might seem odd that Part 4 of the Bill, which relates to processing by the intelligence services, contains a requirement for transparency, but the provisions in Part 4 must be compliant with the modernised Convention 108. As I have said, that data protection principle will operate subject to the application of the exceptions provided for in that part.

In contrast, Part 3 of the Bill reflects the provisions of the law enforcement directive, which is designed to govern law enforcement processing; in this context, it is appropriate that the transparency requirement should not apply. A requirement that all such processing be transparent would, for example, undermine police investigations and operation capabilities. That is not to say that controllers under Part 3 will not process data transparently where they can, and Chapter 3 of this part imposes significant duties on controllers to provide information to data subjects.

Amendments 129J and 133ZJ are not about a popular Saturday night television programme, but about the significance of the word “strictly” in the context of Clause 33(5). Our approach here, and elsewhere, has been to copy out the language of the law enforcement directive wherever possible. Article 10 of the LED uses the phrase “strictly necessary”. The noble Baroness asked whether references in Part 3 to “necessary” and “strictly necessary” should be interpreted differently. That must be the case: “strictly necessary” is a higher threshold than “necessary” on its own.

Amendment 130A brings us back to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was the subject of some debate on day two of Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, indicated in response to that debate, we are carefully considering the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and will respond before the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment 133ZB would replace the term “legitimate” in Clause 34—which establishes the second data protection principle—with the phrase “authorised by law”. I do not believe that there is any material difference between the two terms. Moreover, “legitimate” is used in both the GDPR and the LED, so for that reason we should retain the language used in those instruments to avoid creating legal uncertainty.

The noble Baroness asked about ECJ case law, post Brexit. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill sets out how judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union are to be treated by domestic courts and tribunals after exit day. Clause 6 of that Bill draws a distinction between pre-exit and post-exit CJEU case law. Domestic courts and tribunals are not bound by post-exit case law but may have regard to it if they consider it appropriate. In contrast, pre-exit case law is binding on most domestic courts and tribunals in so far as it is relevant to questions pertaining to retained EU law. The Supreme Court and, in some circumstances, the High Court of Justiciary are, however, not bound. They may depart from pre-exit CJEU case law by reference to the same test that applies when they decide whether to depart from their own case law.

Amendment 133ZD seeks to strike out the reference to “where relevant” in Clause 36(3), which requires a controller to make a distinction between different categories of data subjects, such as suspects, convicted offenders and victims. There may well be a case where it simply would not be relevant for a controller to draw such a distinction. If a controller processes data in respect of only one of the categories of data subject, there is evidently no need for this provision.

Amendment 133ZE seeks to simplify the drafting of Clause 36(4). I do not believe the definitions in Clause 2 support the case for this amendment. Clause 2 defines processing, which includes disclosure, but it does not provide a general definition of disclosure, so it is preferable to retain the language in Clause 36(4).

Amendment 133ZK would introduce a requirement on controllers to publish their policy documents relating to sensitive processing. Such policy documents may contain operationally sensitive information that could well be damaging if published. Given this, scrutiny of such documents by the Information Commissioner, where necessary, provides an appropriate safeguard.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Amendment 133ZA would remove archiving from the list of conditions for processing sensitive data. Law enforcement agencies often archive data for public protection purposes. However, it is right that sufficient safeguards should be in place, particularly concerning sensitive data. The Bill achieves this by permitting archiving only where it is necessary.

The noble Lord asked in what circumstances archiving would be carried out for a purpose connected with law enforcement processing. It may be necessary where, for example, a law enforcement agency needs to review historical offences, such as allegations of child sexual exploitation. On this occasion, data have been processed for the purposes of reviewing the approach taken in child abuse cases investigated decades previously.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that example. I could have used scientific or historical research. Again, I am not entirely clear why these are law enforcement categories. The general ability to take a derogation relating to either of the items listed is well spelled out in the schedule, but I was trying to address the narrow formulation of that in a law enforcement category. The particular example is fine and it is possible that could be right, but I do not think it applies across science, historical or statistical research. Does it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It may do if it pertains to law enforcement purposes, but we may be dancing on the head of a very small pin. Perhaps I could come back to the noble Lord, but where it overlaps into the law enforcement sphere I would think it relevant. However, I will write to him to clarify and confirm my thoughts on that.

The noble Lord also asked about retention of data. I am not sure that was on this amendment, but he is right that it is not—

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Later on.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Okay, I will carry on to Amendment 133ZC, which seeks to require that further processing for law enforcement purposes must have a statutory basis. This would prevent further processing in circumstances that are lawful but not provided in statute. It cannot be in the public interest to unduly restrict the use of data that could assist law enforcement to carry out its legitimate functions.

Amendment 133ZF would remove the law enforcement qualification from Clause 36(4). Its purpose appears to be to ensure that inaccurate data cannot be processed irrespective of whether it is for a law enforcement purpose. For processing other than for a law enforcement purpose, the controller must apply Part 2 of the Bill. Also with reference to Clause 36, Amendment 133ZG would insert a requirement that inaccurate data must be erased if it is not corrected. I understand exactly why this might be a fitting addition. However, it will not always be appropriate for law enforcement where data may form part of a criminal case. For instance, it may be important for evidential reasons for data to be kept unaltered. Inaccurate information could also be evidence of perjury or perverting the course of justice.

Amendment 133ZH would require the controller to have in place a document outlining their retention policy, which would have to be made available to the Information Commissioner on request. Clause 42 already provides safeguards, including a duty to inform the subject about the period for which the data will be stored or the criteria used to determine the period. Moreover, in the policing context, there are policy documents already published that cover this ground, such as the College of Policing manual on the management of police information.

Finally, I will deal briefly with the three government amendments in this group, Amendments 131, 139 and 140, for which the noble Lord has stated his support. They relate to Schedules 8, 9 and 10, which set out a number of conditions, at least one of which must be met, where a law enforcement agency processes sensitive personal data, or one of the intelligence services processes any personal data. They clarify that any processing is lawful for the purposes of the exercise of a function conferred on a person by a rule of law as well as by an enactment. This is consistent with the existing scheme under the Data Protection Act 1998.

In the case of the police, the processing of personal data is, in some instances, undertaken utilising common-law powers in pursuit of their function to prevent crime. One such example is the operation of the domestic violence disclosure scheme, or Clare’s law. Under that scheme, a police force may disclose information to a person about a previous violent and abusive offending behaviour of their partner when he or she was in a previous relationship. It is vital that the police can continue to protect people by disclosing sensitive personal information using their common-law powers.

Amendments 139 and 140 to Schedules 9 and 10 respectively ensure consistency of approach across Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill.

To go back to the point about retention of data and the noble Lord’s point about reviewing whether data are still required, appropriate action should follow such a review. The fifth data protection principle makes this clear. If data are no longer required they should be deleted. I am not entirely sure which amendment that refers to, but I hope some of the explanations I have given will ensure that noble Lords and the noble Baroness are content not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the five amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I should say at the start that I am not convinced by Amendment 133ZL and I look forward to the response of the Government. I am not sure that it is proportionate in respect of law enforcement processing. I had concerns about it before the debate and I have heard nothing to change my mind.

Amendment 133ZM widens the scope of the provisions and I am content with that. I am interested to hear from the Government why the three words to be deleted are so important: perhaps they can convince me of the merits of having them in the Bill.

Amendment 133ZN is proportionate and I happy to support it. I do not support Amendment 133ZP and, again, I have heard nothing yet to convince me otherwise. I await a response from the Government. Amendment 133ZQ seems proportionate to me in respect of the data controller being able to record reasons to restrict provision of information to a data subject and the reasons for refusing requests.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for explaining her amendments in relation to the rights of data subjects. Having disappointed her so much in the last group of amendments, I have some very good news: the Government are content to agree to her Amendment 133ZQ. Perhaps it is right that I did not put my name to it, because she can claim full credit for the amendment, which corrects an erroneous cross-reference in Clause 46(6).

I turn to the other amendments in the group, which have a little more substance. Amendment 133ZL seeks to place a duty on controllers to inform individuals without undue delay that they are a data subject. The right of access conferred on data subjects by Clause 43 largely replicates the existing provision in Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out. Clause 42 already includes obligations on the controller to provide individuals with information in general terms and in specific cases to enable a data subject to access their rights. We consider that this is the right approach and one which reflects the terms of the LED. We welcome the enhanced rights for data subjects provided for in Part 3, but it is important that such rights are proportionate and that we take account of the resource implications for police forces and other competent authorities. Placing a duty on controllers proactively to notify individuals that they are data subjects would, we believe, place an unnecessary burden on competent authorities. In practice, many individuals will know that their personal data is being processed by a particular controller; where they are unsure they can submit a subject access request. It is important to note that under the new regime subject access requests will generally be free of charge.

Amendment 133ZM seeks to probe the need for the phrase “in specific cases” in Clause 42(2). This phrase, which appears in article 13(2) of the law enforcement directive, is simply designed to distinguish between the duty on a controller, under Clause 42(1), to provide certain general information to data subjects which might be discharged by posting the information on the controller’s website, and the separate duty, in Clause 42(2), to provide certain additional information directly to a data subject to enable them to exercise their rights. Moreover, the information which must be provided under Clause 42(2) may be person-specific and the drafting makes this clear.

Amendment 133ZN seeks to define the term “fundamental rights” as used in Clause 42(4) and elsewhere in this part. This is not the occasion to reopen the debate we had at the start of Committee on article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Committee will be aware that it is not the Government’s intention to enshrine the charter into UK law. That being the case, and recognising that Part 3 of the Bill provides for a scheme for law enforcement processing which is enshrined in our domestic law, the reference to fundamental rights should be interpreted in accordance with UK law by the UK courts, rather than seeking to enshrine the charter.

In Amendment 133ZP to Clause 42(4)(a), the noble Baroness seeks clarification of what constitutes an “official inquiry”, as opposed to a “legal inquiry”. I start by pointing out that the law enforcement directive uses both terms, and we have followed our usual practice of copying the directive wherever possible. There are, of course, legally constituted inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005, but not all official inquiries are formally constituted under that Act. The use of both terms recognises that formally constituted inquiries may take different forms and be conducted by different entities. It is important to emphasise that a controller is subject to the limitations in the opening words of Clause 42(4) and cannot restrict the provision of information simply by virtue of the fact that the information pertains to an inquiry.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness—she certainly looks happier than on the previous group of amendments—and that she will be content to withdraw her Amendment 133ZL. As I have indicated, I will be happy to endorse Amendment 133ZQ when she comes to move it formally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these amendments return us to the issue of automated decision-making, which we debated on Monday, albeit principally in the context of Part 2.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has indicated that the purpose of Amendment 134A is to probe why Clause 48(1)(b) is required. Clauses 47 and 48 should be read together. Clause 47 essentially operates to prohibit the controller making a significant decision based solely on automated processing, unless such a decision is required or authorised by law. Where automated decision-making is authorised or required by law, Clause 48 permits the controller to make a qualifying significant decision, subject to the specified safeguards.

A significant decision based solely on automated processing which is not required or authorised by law is an unlawful decision and therefore null and void. That being the case, we should not seek to legitimise an unlawful decision by conferring a right on a data subject to request that such a decision be reconsidered. Should such a decision be made contrary to Clause 47(1), the proper way to deal with it is through enforcement action by the Information Commissioner, not through the provisions of Clause 48.

Amendments 135 and 144 seek to prevent any decision being taken on the basis of automated decision-making where the decision would engage the rights of the data subject under the Human Rights Act. As my noble friend Lord Ashton indicated on Monday when the Committee debated Amendment 75, which was framed in similar terms, such a restriction would arguably wholly negate the provisions in respect of automated decision-making as it would be possible to argue that any decision based on automated decision-making would, at the very least, engage the data subject’s right to respect for privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At the same time, the unintended consequences of this could be very damaging. For example, any intelligence work by the intelligence services relating to an individual would almost certainly engage the right to respect for private life. The effect of the amendment on Part 4 would therefore be to prevent the intelligence services taking any further action based on automated processing, even if that further action was necessary, proportionate, authorised under the law and fully compliant with the Human Rights Act. Where a decision will have legal or similarly significant effects for a data subject, data controllers will be required to notify data subjects to ensure that they can seek the remaking of that decision with human intervention. We believe that this affords sufficient safeguards.

Turning to Amendment 135A, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that automated processing does indeed include profiling. This is clear from the definition of profiling in Clause 31 which refers to,

“any form of automated processing of personal data consisting of the use of personal data to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to an individual”.

Given that, I do not believe more is needed, but I confirm that there is no significance in omitting the word “profiling”. We did not include a reference to profiling as an example of automated decision-making on the grounds that it is just that, an example, and therefore an express reference to including profiling would add nothing.

Amendment 135B would require controllers to notify data subjects within 72 hours where a qualifying significant decision has been made based solely on automated processing. While it is appropriate elsewhere in the Bill to require controllers to report data breaches to the Information Commissioner, where feasible, within 72 hours, we consider that the existing requirement to notify data subjects of what is a lawful qualifying significant decision as soon as reasonably practicable establishes the need for prompt notification while recognising that there needs to be some flexibility to reflect the operational environment.

Amendment 136A seeks to require the Information Commissioner to appoint an independent person to oversee the operation of automated decision-making under Part 3. I am unpersuaded of the case for this amendment. The Information Commissioner is, of course, already an independent regulator with express statutory duties to, among other things, monitor and enforce the provisions in Part 3, so it is unclear to me why the commissioner should be obliged to, in effect, subcontract her functions in so far as they relate to automated decision-making. Such processing is subject to the commissioner’s oversight functions as much as any other processing, so I do not see why we need to single it out for special treatment. If the argument is that automated processing can have a more acute impact on data subjects than any other forms of processing, then it is open to the commissioner to reflect this in how she undertakes her regulatory functions and to monitor compliance with Clauses 47 and 48 more closely than other aspects of Part 3, but this should be left to the good judgment of the commissioner rather than adding a new layer of regulation.

The noble Baroness asked whether it is 21 days from receipt of notification or another time. Clause 48(2)(b) makes it clear that it is 21 days from receipt.

I have some sympathy for Amendment 137, which requires controllers subject to Part 3, on request, to provide data subjects with the reasons behind the processing of their personal data. I agree that data subjects should, in general, have the right to information about decision-making which affects them, whether or not that decision-making derives from automated processing. However, this is not straightforward. For example, as with the rights to information under Clauses 42 and 43, this cannot be an absolute right otherwise we risk compromising ongoing criminal investigations. If the noble Baroness will agree not to move Amendment 137, I undertake to consider the matter further ahead of Report.

Amendments 142C and 143B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, seek to confer a new duty on controllers to inform data subjects of their right to intervene in automated decision-making. I believe the Bill already effectively provides for this. Clause 95(3) already places a duty on a controller to notify a data subject that a decision about them based solely on automated processing has been made.

Amendments 145 and 146 seek to strike out the provisions in Part 4 that enable automated decision-making in relation to the consideration of contracts. The briefing issued by Liberty suggested that there was no like provision under the GDPR, but recital 71 to the GDPR expressly refers to processing,

“necessary for the entering or performance of a contract between the data subject and a controller”,

as one example of automated processing which is allowed when authorised by law. Moreover, we envisage the intelligence services making use of this provision—for example, considering whether to enter into a contract may initially require a national security assessment whereby an individual’s name is run through a computer program to determine potential threats.

Finally, Amendment 146A would place a duty on the intelligence services to inform the Information Commissioner of the outcome of their consideration of a request by a data subject to review a decision based solely on automated processing. We are not persuaded that a routine notification of this kind is necessary. The Information Commissioner has a general function in relation to the monitoring and enforcement of Part 4 and in pursuance of that function can seek necessary information from the intelligence services, including in respect of automated processing.

I hope again that my detailed explanation in response to these amendments has satisfied noble Lords, and as I have indicated, I am ready to consider Amendment 137 further ahead of Report. I hope that on that note, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the long response and for the Minister agreeing to consider Amendment 137. As regards oversight of automated processing, which is not quite where I would be coming to as something that was suggested to us, it would be fair to say that the commissioner has a resource issue covering all these developments. Maybe it is something that we will think about further in order to approach it from a different direction, perhaps by requiring some regular reporting about how the development of automated processing is controlled and affecting data subjects. I will consider that, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this quite extensive group of amendments relates to the obligations on controllers and processors and the transfer of personal data to third countries. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, Amendment 137B seeks to probe the necessity for the words “where applicable” in Clause 59(2)(g), which places a duty on a controller to record details of the use of profiling in the course of processing. This wording is transposed directly from Article 24 of the LED—and. to be clear, we are not excluding types of profiling from being recorded. Rather, the clause provides that all profiling is recorded where profiling has taken place. The wording acknowledges that some processing may not involve profiling.

Amendment 137C seeks to add a definition of the word “nature” as used in Clause 62(4). References to the,

“nature, scope, context, and purposes of the processing”,

are found throughout the LED and we have faithfully transposed this. We accept that the nature of the processing does include the aspects set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment, but we do not believe it necessary to set that out on the face of the Bill, and there is a danger that doing so in these terms could unwittingly narrow the scope of this provision. I might add that the Information Commissioner’s Office already publishes guidance on conducting privacy impact assessments and will be issuing further guidance on issues related to the Bill in due course.

Amendment 137D to Clause 63 would confer on the Information Commissioner a power to make regulations specifying further circumstances in which a controller must consult the commissioner before undertaking processing activities. Currently the requirement is for controllers to consult the commissioner when a data protection impact assessment indicates that processing would pose a high risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Clause 63 reflects the provisions in Article 28 of the LED and sets an appropriate threshold for mandatory consultation with the Information Commissioner. This is not to preclude consultation in other cases, but I am unpersuaded that we should go down the rather unusual road of conferring regulation-making powers on the commissioner. Instead, we should leave this to the co-operative relationship we expect to see between the commissioner and controllers and, if appropriate, to any guidance issued by the commissioner.

Amendment 137E seeks to specify the content of the written advice which the Information Commissioner must provide to a controller in the event that she considers that a proposed processing operation would contravene the provisions of Part 3. I do not disagree with the point that the amendment is seeking to make—indeed, it echoes some of what is said at paragraph 209 of the Explanatory Notes—but we believe that we can sensibly leave it to the good judgment of the commissioner to determine on a case-by-case basis what needs to be covered in her advice.

Amendment 137F would expressly require controllers to account for the cost of implementation when putting in place appropriate organisational and technical measures to keep data safe. I entirely agree with the spirit of this amendment; there needs to be a proportionate approach to data protection. However, I refer the noble Baroness to Clause 53(3), which already includes a provision to this effect. On Amendment 137G, we believe the use of the present tense is correct in Clause 66(3)(a) in that the implementation of the measures is ongoing and not set in the past.

Amendment 137H would require a controller to inform the commissioner when they have restricted the information available to data subjects in the event of a data breach. Clause 66(7) is one of four instances in Part 3 where a controller may restrict the rights of data subjects. I do not believe that there is a case for singling out this provision as one where a duty to report the exercise of the restriction should apply. If the commissioner wants information about the exercise of the power in Clause 66(7), she can ask for it.

Amendment 137J seeks to add to the role of data protection officers by requiring them to update the controller on relevant developments in the data protection standards of third countries. I do not deny that awareness of such standards by police forces and others is important for the purposes of the operation of the safeguards in Chapter 5 of Part 3. However, Clause 69 properly reflects the terms of the LED. It does not preclude data protection officers exercising other functions such as the one described in Amendment 137J.

Amendments 137K, 137L and 137M relate to Clause 71, which sets out the general principles for transfers of personal data to a third country or international organisation. The whole purpose of Chapter 5 of Part 3 is to provide safeguards where personal data is transferred across borders. Given that, I am not sure what Amendment 137K would add. Amendment 137L would narrow the circumstances in which onward transfers of personal data may take place with express authorisation from the originator of the data. In contrast, Amendment 137M, in seeking to remove Clause 71(5)(b), would expand those circumstances —which I am not sure is the noble Baroness’s intention. Subsection (5) is a direct transposition of article 35(2) of the LED, so we should remain faithful to its provisions. What constitutes the essential interests of a member state must be for the controller to determine in the circumstances of a particular case—but, here as elsewhere, they are open to challenge, including enforcement action by the commissioner if they were to abuse such provisions.

Amendment 137N would require a controller to pay due regard to any ICO guidance before coming to a decision under Clause 74(2), which relates to the transfer of data on the basis of special circumstances. The Bill already caters for this. Clause 119 places a duty on the commissioner to prepare a data-sharing code of practice and, under the general principles of public law, controllers will be required to consider the code—or for that matter any other guidance issued by the commissioner.

Finally, Amendment 137EA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, seeks to set in statute the retention period for personal data derived from ANPR cameras. ANPR is an important tool used by the police and others for the prevention and detection of crime. I understand that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has recently changed its policy on the retention of ANPR records, reducing the retention period from two years to 12 months. The new policy requires all data not related to a specific case to be deleted after 12 months. This will be reflected in revised national ANPR standards. We know that the Information Commissioner had concerns about the retention of ANPR records and we welcome the decision by the NPCC in this regard.

Given this, I have no difficulty with the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment, but the detail is too prescriptive and we are not persuaded that we should be writing into the Bill the retention period for one category of personal data processed by competent authorities. The amendment is unduly prescriptive as it takes no account of the fact that there will be operational circumstances where the data needs to be retained for longer than 12 months—in particular, where it is necessary to do so for investigative or evidential purposes.

More generally, I remind the noble Lord that the fifth data protection principle—the requirement that personal data be kept no longer than is necessary—will regulate the retention policies of controllers for all classes of personal data. In addition, Clause 37(2) requires controllers to undertake a periodic review of the need for the continued retention of data. Given these provisions, I am not persuaded that we should single out ANPR-related data for special treatment on the face of the Bill.

I apologise again for the extensive explanation of the amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press them.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Certainly. I feel that I ought perhaps to apologise to the House for the speed at which we have been going; it has caused a bit of a flurry. I know that I have been quite telegraphic in speaking to the amendments. I have possibly been too telegraphic, but I will read the detail of the response, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

141: Clause 90, page 51, line 9, leave out “to 96” and insert “and 95”

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, government Amendments 141 and 142 to Clause 90 are technical in nature and simply ensure that the summary description of the rights conferred on data subjects by Chapter 3 of Part 4, as set out in subsection (1), fully itemises each of the relevant rights. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about their amendments in this group and I will respond to them when winding up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I cannot be quite so quick but I will be fairly quick. Amendment 142B concerns Clause 91(3), which states:

“The controller is not required … to give a data subject information that the data subject already has”.


When I read that, I wondered how the controller would know that the data subject had the information. Therefore, my alternative wording would refer to information which the,

“controller has previously provided to the data subject”.

There can therefore be no doubt about that.

Amendment 143A concerns Clause 92, which deals with a right of access within a time limit of a month of the relevant day, as that is defined, or a longer period specified in regulations. What is anticipated here? Why is there the possibility of an extension? This cannot, I believe, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as that would be completely impracticable and, I think, improper. Is it to see whether experience shows that it is a struggle to provide information within a month, and therefore a time limit of more than a month would benefit the controller, which at the same time would be likely to disbenefit the data subject, given the importance of the information? I hope the Minister can explain why this slightly curious power for the Secretary of State is included in the Bill.

Amendment 146B concerns Clause 97, which deals with the right to object to processing. I might have misunderstood this but I believe that the controller is obliged to comply only if he needs to be informed of the location of data. I do not know whether I have that right, so Amendment 146B proposes the wording,

“if its location is known to the data subject”,

so that the amendment flows through in terms of language, if not in sense. The second limb of Clause 97(2), whereby the data subject is told that the controller needs to know this, suggests this. That enables me to make the point that this puts quite a heavy burden on the data subject.

Amendment 148A concerns Clause 101. I, of course, support the requirement that the controller should implement measures to minimise the risks to rights and freedoms. However, I question the term “minimise”. The Bill is generally demanding in regard to this protection, so to root the requirement in the detail of the Bill the amendment would add,

“in accordance with this Act”.

As regards the test of whether a personal data breach seriously interferes with rights, I suggest this is not as high a threshold as that required by the term “significantly” proposed in Amendment 148B.

Following the noble Lord’s co-piloting analogy, I now say, “Over and out”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who negated the need for me to speak to Amendment 142A, so I shall not do so.

I turn straight to Amendment 142B. This requires the controller to provide a data subject with specified information about the processing of their personal data unless the controller has previously provided the data subject with that information. This contrasts with the existing approach in Clause 91(3), which provides that the controller is not required to give the data subject information that the data subject already has. Although similar, the shift in emphasis of this amendment could undermine Clause 91(2) by requiring the data controller to provide information directly to the data subject rather than to generally provide it. The effect of this could be to place an undue burden on the controller by preventing them providing such information generally, such as by means of their website.

Clause 92 provides for an individual to obtain confirmation from a controller of whether the controller is processing personal data concerning them and, if so, to be provided with that data and information relating to it. It sets out how an individual would request such information and places certain restrictions and obligations on meeting such requests.

Amendment 142C would add to the information that must be provided to a data subject. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. Clause 91 already provides that the general information that must be provided by a controller is information about how to exercise rights under Chapter 3 of Part 4 and I am sure that the Information Commissioner will put out further information about data subjects’ rights under each of the schemes covered by the Bill.

The purpose of Amendment 142D is to remove the ability of the intelligence services to charge a fee for providing information in response to a request by a data subject in any circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, or the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—I am not quite sure who it was; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—has contrasted the position in Part 4 with that in Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, whereby a controller may charge a fee only where the subject access request is manifestly unfounded or excessive. The fact remains, however, that the modernised Convention 108, on which Part 4 is based, continues to allow for the charging of a reasonable fee for subject access requests and we are retaining the power to specify a maximum fee, which currently stands at £10.

It is entirely right that the intelligence services should be required to respond to subject access requests, but we believe it is appropriate to retain the ability to charge because we do not want the intelligence services to be exposed to vexatious or frivolous requests that could impose a significant burden upon Part 4 controllers. As I have said, the modernised Convention 108 allows for the charging of a fee and there is a power in Clause 92 not just to place a cap on the amount of the fee but to provide that, in specified cases, no fee may be charged. I think this is the right approach and we should therefore retain Clause 92(3) and (4).

Amendment 143A would require every subject access request under Clause 92 to be fulfilled within one month and would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to extend the applicable time period to up to three months for any cases. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has considered this Bill and made no comment on this regulation-making power. In our delegated powers memorandum we explained the need for this provision, and the equivalent power in Part 3 of the Bill, as follows:

“Meeting the default one month time limit for responding to subject access requests or to requests to rectify or erase personal data may, in some cases, prove to be challenging, particularly where the data controller holds a significant volume of data in relation to the data subject. A power to extend the applicable time period to up to three months will afford the flexibility to take into account the operational experience of police forces, the CPS, prisons and others in responding to requests from data subjects under the new regime”.


I hope the noble Baroness would agree that this is a prudent regulation-making power which affords us limited flexibility to take into account the operational experience of the intelligence services in operating under the new scheme.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Before the Minister moves on, I asked whether the power would be used on a case-by-case basis, which I thought was what she was saying, or as a result of overall experience—and then she went on to talk about overall experience. So is it the latter, extending to all cases in the light of experience gathered over a period?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, that is the point I made.

One of the rights afforded by Part 4 is that a data subject can require a controller not to process their personal data if that processing is an unwarranted interference with their interests or rights. If such a request is received, the controller may require further information in order to comply with the request. This includes information so as to be satisfied of the identity of the requesting individual or information so that they can locate the data in question.

Amendment 146B would require the requesting individual to provide information to help the controller locate the data in question only if the individual themselves knows where the data is located. I think we can agree that it is very unlikely that a data subject would know the exact location of data processed by a controller. As such, this change could make it more difficult for a controller to locate the data in question, as the data subject could refuse to provide any information to aid in the locating of their data. This could make it impossible for the controller to comply with the request and would in turn deprive the data subject of having their request fulfilled.

Chapter 4 of Part 4 deals with the obligations of the controller and processor. Controllers must consider the impact of any proposed processing on the rights of data subjects and implement appropriate measures to ensure those rights. In particular, Clause 101(2)(b) requires that risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects be minimised. Amendment 148A would require that those risks be also dealt with in accordance with the Bill. If I understand the purpose of this amendment correctly and the noble Baroness’s intention is that the broader requirements of Part 4 should apply to any new type of processing, I can concur with the sentiments behind this amendment. However, it is not necessary to state this requirement in Clause 101; all processing by the intelligence services must be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Bill.

Finally, Clause 106 requires that the controller notify the Information Commissioner if the controller becomes aware of a serious personal breach of data for which it is responsible. A data breach is deemed serious if it seriously interferes with the rights and freedoms of a data subject. Amendment 148B seeks to alter the level at which a data breach must be notified to the commissioner by lowering the threshold from a serious interference with the rights and freedoms of a data subject to a significant interference. The threshold is set purposely at serious so that the focus and resources of the controller and commissioner are spent on breaches above a reasonable threshold. We also draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the draft modernised Convention 108, which uses the phrase “seriously interfere”.

I am mindful that some noble Lords in this Chamber will be utterly perplexed by the subject matter to which we have been referring, so I hope that, with those words, the noble Lord will be sufficiently reassured and will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The answer to that question is that we are not happy with what the Minister said about the ability of the intelligence services, uniquely in this whole area, to charge a fee to discourage people from getting access to the rights which they certainly have under the Act. I sensed that the Minister understands that; perhaps it is a little unfair to say that, as most other noble Lords were not able to see her smile, gently, as she tried to put substance and seriousness into the argument she was using, which was clearly very thin indeed. To make the point, we are relying on a convention which has yet to be signed. That is the fig leaf under which we will be smuggling these ridiculous fees. I urge the Minister to take this back and think again, and I look forward to a further discussion with her if she feels that any more information could be provided.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

142: Clause 90, page 51, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) section 96 deals with the right to information about decision-making;”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

143: Clause 92, page 53, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) A court may make an order under subsection (11) in relation to a joint controller whose responsibilities are determined in an arrangement under section 102 only if the controller is responsible for compliance with the obligation to which the order relates.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

147: Clause 97, page 56, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) A court may make an order under subsection (5) in relation to a joint controller whose responsibilities are determined in an arrangement under section 102 only if the controller is responsible for compliance with the obligation to which the order relates.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

148: Clause 98, page 56, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) A court may make an order under this section in relation to a joint controller whose responsibilities are determined in an arrangement under section 102 only if the controller is responsible for carrying out the rectification, erasure or restriction of processing that the court proposes to order.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

149: Schedule 11, page 174, line 18, leave out “is necessary”

Women’s Suffrage Centenary Fund

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McDonagh]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the £5 million public fund celebrating the centenary of women acquiring the vote has been allocated.

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

My Lords, the Government’s programme includes a statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, a suite of education projects and a forthcoming small grants scheme. The hope is that the £5 million fund will inspire young people and women to become more involved in democracy.

[Baroness McDonagh (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Can I ask a little more about the small grants scheme? It seems that a whole raft of organisations, a number of them charities, are asking for money and have not heard anything. We understand when the centenary is; we understood that 100 years ago. Do the Government have any broader ideas, both here in Parliament and outside, about how they will celebrate the role of women over the last 100 years in public life—perhaps to encourage more to come forward?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the last point, the Government will certainly think about how they can celebrate the role of women both in Parliament and, more broadly, in public life. On the small grants fund, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that people have not heard yet, but they will do very soon.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, given the quite magnificent array of women artists in this country—painters, sculptors, writers and, of course, composers—might it not be appropriate to commission a memorial to Emily Davison, who took her suffragette protest to the Derby and was killed by the King’s horse, having hid here the previous night in a cupboard in the undercroft?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that Emily Davison is certainly a woman to be celebrated. However, on the funding of statues of some of the great women who have taken part in women’s suffrage over the last 100 years, it should not be a case of either/or. There are too few statues commemorating the women who have helped to shape our nation. We welcome the efforts of all charities and campaigners who are actively involved in this process.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Will my noble friend agree—I think she will, in view of what she said—that it is entirely appropriate that the projected statue in Parliament Square should be of Dame Millicent Fawcett, leader of the law-abiding suffragists for over 50 years, a Liberal and then a Liberal Unionist, whose work helped to create a Commons majority for women’s suffrage in the 1890s?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In view of what I have said, of course I agree with my noble friend. She played such an important part not only in history but in where we are today. When I look across this Chamber and the other place, I know I would not be here had it not been for her.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fund that the Minister mentioned and I hope it will get lots of publicity. She will be aware that since 1918 only 489 women have been elected to the House of Commons. Much more needs to be done to break down the barriers facing women in all walks of life. Does the Minister agree that, in celebrating the centenary, we should look at the next 100 years and do all we can to improve the lives of women by introducing better legislation to combat sexual and domestic abuse, be it in the workplace or in the home, and to change the culture of our society so that women and girls are treated equally? One measure that the Government can take is to accelerate the ratification of the Istanbul convention. That would be a great step forward into the next century for women and girls.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the Istanbul convention. As she knows, that process is imminent. She is right to mention the next 100 years. If we do not think about the women in the pipeline in all sorts of ways—in Parliament, in the workplace and in their public and private lives—we will slow down the progress that we have made in the previous 100 years. Therefore, I totally agree that we can never lose sight of where we want to be.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to make a suggestion for commemorating that momentous day, and the cost to the state would be negligible. As we know, Nancy Astor was the first female Member of Parliament. A portrait of her introduction to the House of Commons, sponsored by Lloyd George and Arthur James Balfour, used to hang in the Commons before, scandalously, being removed in the male club atmosphere of the time. I am so glad that male MPs display a much more respectful and enlightened attitude towards women today. The portrait is now displayed in Lady Astor’s American birthplace. Would it be possible to make representations to see whether we can borrow it back to commemorate this date?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can certainly take that back but I cannot make any undertakings at the Dispatch Box. However, I totally take the point that the noble Baroness has made.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am well aware of the keen interest that the Minister takes in her home-based activities in Manchester. Will she commend the campaign of Councillor Andrew Simcock of Manchester City Council to erect a statue to Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the suffragette movement—the first statue for women in the city—and ensure that Manchester gets a fair share of the fund when the allocation is made, so that the activities around the centenary are properly celebrated in the north of England?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has asked me a question about which I am very enthusiastic. Manchester was not only at the heart of but provided the turning point for women’s suffrage. Manchester provides the turning point for many things, as we know. Not only do I applaud the efforts of Manchester but I wish its people well in this process.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, might we take the opportunity of the centenary to reflect on the fact that the then Liberal Government refused to give women the vote because they were worried that they would lose the votes of men?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. In fact, turning to the previous question, I think that Emmeline Pankhurst was thrown out of the Free Trade Hall in Manchester and, in true Mancunian style, decided to hold a meeting in the street.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister make sure that working-class women, who played a very large role in this matter, get proper recognition? As a north-west person, is she aware of the campaign in Oldham for a statue for Annie Kenney?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was not aware of the Oldham campaign but the noble Baroness raises a very important point about working-class women and democracy. Democracy in Parliament and local government should not be the preserve of the elite; it should be open to everybody. I know that parties across the House have made incredible efforts to attract women from all socioeconomic groups to play their part.

Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness and enforcement of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013.

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

The Government have conducted a review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 to assess whether it has met its intended objectives and whether it should be retained or repealed. A report of the findings of this review will be published later this year.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Only organised criminal gangs would like to see the Act repealed. It was immensely successful initially thanks to rigorous enforcement, led by the British Transport Police, and the work of the scrap metal task force. Is she aware that in the past two years, from the second half of 2016 and through this year, the incidence of theft has been growing again, particularly of high-value items, through the work of organised gangs? The increase is due also to the rise in the value of scrap metal—for example, copper is now worth more than £5,000 per tonne. Should not the Act be strengthened and the task force reconstituted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in terms of thefts going up, as the noble Lord has said, between 2012-13 and 2015-16 we saw a decrease of something like 74%, which is very pleasing. We will not know the latest figures for a while, but the Government will certainly be looking at them. He is absolutely right about high-value incidents. We recognise the impact that they have, particularly on heritage assets. On enforcement, obviously the police and local authorities deploy their resources as they see fit, but certainly this type of theft has a broader impact on society, not only on those from whom the material has been stolen.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, how often are chemical markers such as SmartWater being used on public sculptures and memorials? Are scrap metal dealers being encouraged to check for such markers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Earl how often chemical markers have been used, particularly on heritage assets. However, I can write to him about it.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the impact on churches of such theft, particularly from roofs. It has a devastating effect on church communities and knock-on effects for important local amenities. Can she clarify what the Home Office can do to encourage enforcement of the need to register scrap metal dealers with local authorities, as well as not selling on scrap for cash?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, buying scrap metal for cash is now an offence. I declare an interest in that I was chairman of the Heritage Lottery Fund for the north-west, so I recognise the totally disproportionate impact that these crimes have on communities and on heritage. The Sentencing Council has published guidelines relating to offences of theft which specifically recognise that where an offence involves the theft of historic objects or a loss of the nation’s heritage, these are to be considered aggravating factors when sentencing. This can include damage to heritage sites or theft from the interior or exterior of listed churches.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with Gypsy and Traveller traders about the Act as currently implemented? It has caused them considerable difficulties, almost amounting to restraint of trade.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am just turning to my noble friend Lord Henley, who was involved in the Act, as was my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I understand that during the passage of the Bill and prior to that, the Gypsy and Traveller community made representations. However, there is an overriding point here, which is that the trade in scrap metal must be lawful, and therefore the full force of the law should come down on people who steal metal and attempt to sell it.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords have spoken about the top level of illegal trade and theft. What tends to happen in towns in the north of England is that people drive up and down the backstreets in unregistered vans or trucks with no identification on them. They pick up and take away anything that is left on the street. They also look into backyards and if no one is living in the house, they might take material away. If there is someone in the house, they will offer them a couple of quid. But even if these people are not paying money for the scrap, they need waste carrier licences. Much of this is going on at a low level that is just below the radar. What will the police do to stop it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord mentions a number of different events, which may or may not be theft. Some people might be quite grateful to have scrap metal that has been lying in their backyards for years picked up. Going back to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, it is now unlawful for someone to buy scrap metal for cash, and therefore there is now a better audit trail of where scrap metal is going.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the legislation is clearly desirable and has been successful, but we have not totally eliminated the theft of metal, so it must be getting into the scrap metal industry. Can the Minister tell us anything about prosecutions of scrap metal dealers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can tell my noble friend that there were 62,000 offences in 2012-13, which came down to 16,000 in 2015-16. That huge decline in the number of offences tells me that there has been a huge decline in the number of thefts.

Calais: Refugees

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for securing a debate on this important issue, and I pay tribute to his tenacity on this subject. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part today.

The UK is a global leader in responding to the needs of those affected by conflict and persecution, and we have a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need of protection. Many noble Lords have talked about the figure of 480 children, but in the year ending 2017 the UK granted asylum or another form of leave to more than 9,000 children, and has done so for more than 42,000 children since 2010.

On the noble Lord’s question about the conflict in Syria, we have pledged £2.46 billion in aid and we will resettle 20,000 people to the UK by 2020 under our vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. He asked how many so far. The answer is more than 8,500 individuals are already here, around half of whom are children. We will resettle 3,000 of the most vulnerable children and their family members from the Middle East and north Africa region by 2020 under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme. Further to that, Eurostat figures show that in 2016 the UK resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU member state, and in total over one-third of all resettlement to the EU was actually to the UK.

Our efforts do not end there. In order to reduce suffering along the key migration routes, as my noble friend Lady Morris pointed out in her eloquent speech, we assist vulnerable people on the move, inform them about the risks of onward journeys and support alternatives, such as voluntary return or resettlement in a third country. Since October 2015 we have allocated more than £175 million in humanitarian assistance to the Mediterranean migration crisis. This support has provided lifesaving assistance such as shelter, water and sanitation, food, medical care, and protection for the most vulnerable migrants and refugees. It has helped to build the capacity of host Governments to manage migration so that it is safe and orderly.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about Calais. The UK provided comprehensive support, following a request from the French Government, for the clearance of the Calais camp last year. This included the safe transfer of more than 750 unaccompanied children from France to the UK, and a commitment of £36 million, as the noble Lord pointed out, to help to provide alternative accommodation elsewhere in France for migrants and to maintain the security of the border controls in Calais, which are a critical part of our national security.

One year on from the Calais camp clearance, the Government welcome ongoing French efforts to manage what continues to be a challenging situation in the area. We welcome the French Government’s recent decision to deploy more police to the region and to continue to provide alternative accommodation for migrants elsewhere in France. France has many of the same international obligations as the UK towards those on its territory, and migrants in France are the responsibility of the French Government. I know that noble Lords have become frustrated by me saying that time and again, but France is a democratic country and it is true that migrants in France are the responsibility of the French Government.

We also enjoy excellent law enforcement co-operation with the French authorities and other European partners. We have increased our intelligence sharing and operational co-operation with the French through the establishment of the joint centre for information and co-ordination in Calais. Through the Organised Immigration Crime Taskforce, we have deployed officers from the National Crime Agency, Border Force, Immigration Enforcement and Crown Prosecution Service to numerous European countries, including France, to work with law enforcement and criminal justice partners on tackling the organised crime groups that facilitate people smuggling. Just last week there were 11 arrests in the UK for people smuggling under Operation Halifax—a Europe-wide investigation into an international organised crime gang that was smuggling migrants across Europe and into the United Kingdom. Key to our co-operation with European partners is the intelligence exchanged through the European Migrant Smuggling Centre, which leads Europol on organised immigration crime.

I want to be clear that there is no need for migrants to return to Calais and the surrounding areas in the hope of travelling illegally to the UK to claim asylum here. France is a safe country and those in need of protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity. In the Government’s regular engagement at ministerial—

[Lord Hylton]

Will the noble Baroness be kind enough to address the language question? These people, if they know any European language, know English.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is absolutely true, and there is regular support to that end in France. I assume the noble Lord is talking about France.

We have established additional welcome centres for people already in place across the country, and four new centres have recently opened away from the juxtaposed ports, where those wishing to claim asylum will be supported through the asylum process—I am guessing, with language help as well. Regular transportation is provided to these centres.

We are well aware of reports—noble Lords have mentioned this this afternoon—that unaccompanied children are among those who have returned to Calais. I would again emphasise that any children who are in the area should claim asylum or otherwise seek support from the French authorities. We continue to work closely with France and other member states to deliver the transfer of 480 unaccompanied children from Europe to the UK under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. A High Court ruling handed down today confirmed that the Government’s approach to implementing Section 67 was lawful. The focus for the Government, working together with local authorities and other partners, must be on transferring eligible children to the UK as quickly as possible, with their safety and best interests at the centre of all our decisions. Children have arrived in recent weeks from France and transfers are ongoing. We have been working closely with Greece to put in place the process for the safe transfer of eligible children to the UK, and expect to receive referrals in the coming weeks. That answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. This is in addition to our ongoing commitments under Dublin.

Here in the UK, for the year ending June 2017, I say again, we granted asylum or another form of leave to more than 9,000 children, and to more than 42,000 children since 2010. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and refugee children are safe and their welfare is promoted once they arrive in the UK. That is why the Government published yesterday a safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children in recognition of their increasing numbers and specific needs. The strategy includes commitments to increase the number of foster places, review the funding available to local authorities that support unaccompanied children, improve the information and advice available to children and their families, and prevent children going missing.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked about the Dublin regulations. The Home Office today published the Dublin III Regulation guidance, which covers decisions relating to the state responsible for examining an asylum claim and transfers between the UK and other European states in respect of adults and children. It is important that this House recognise that Dublin is a two-way co-operation measure which concerns adults as well as children. On the specific case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I will certainly respond to him about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, highlighted the local authority point. Local authorities, as he will know, have been tremendously generous in caring for migrant children, regardless of their circumstances. Every region in England is now participating in the national transfer scheme and, if we are to continue to make that scheme a success, we need more local authorities to come forward and offer places—a point I have made to the noble Lord on many occasions.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, last year we substantially increased funding to local authorities, which are responsible for supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As of the start of July 2016, local authorities now receive £41,610 a year for each unaccompanied asylum-seeking child aged under 16, and £33,215 for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children aged 16 and 17. This represents a 20% and 28% increase in funding, respectively.

My noble friend Lady Berridge mentioned Christians and members of other religious groups. We are very clear that our scheme will prioritise the most vulnerable refugees and that is why, under the VPRS, UNHCR identifies refugees for resettlement using its vulnerability criteria. Membership of a minority religious group is not, in and of itself, one of the vulnerability criteria, but members of minority religious groups may qualify under one of the other criteria.

Finally, I will answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the pull factor, which my noble friend Lady Stroud also mentioned. We acknowledge that there are both push and pull factors affecting migratory flows. We know that the French authorities are concerned about Calais and the northern coast of France being a pull factor, and we share that concern. Those in France should claim asylum in France—that is the safest and fastest route to safety.

With that, I thank noble Lords for taking part and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for securing the debate.

Hamas

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an indirect interest in that since 2007 I have visited many Hamas leaders in both Gaza and the West Bank. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

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

My Lords, the military wing of Hamas is a proscribed organisation. It is not government policy to provide a running commentary on any proscribed organisation. The Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary to consider deproscription by written application.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Of course I did not expect her to say yes immediately. Nevertheless, does she agree that the situation has changed profoundly since Hamas was first listed? Would delisting not help all sides to be rather less intransigent than they have been up to now? Would it not build confidence among all Palestinians and help support their new Government of unity? Will she at least take away this Question and discuss it with her ministerial colleagues, since it crosses departmental boundaries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I acknowledge that the noble Lord raises a challenging and complex issue. It is difficult to predict the impact that a particular course of action may have as the situation is so complex. The UK remains a strong supporter of promoting peace.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the reconciliation agreement between the two Palestinian factions is surely to be welcomed and potentially gives Israel a negotiating partner. However, will the Minister confirm that Hamas still calls for the destruction of Israel, that its military wing still builds tunnels to attack Israel, and that it sends rockets into southern Israel?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord is saying. However, it is government policy not to provide a running commentary on any proscribed organisation.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, as Britain was a signatory of the Balfour Declaration, and as the Government support a two-state solution, does the Minister think the time has come to recognise the state of Palestine, as more than 130 other countries have done?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as we approach the centenary we are conscious of the sensitivities that many people have about the declaration and the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish community in Palestine. We also recognise the continued impediment of the occupation towards securing political rights. We are clear that we want to see the creation of a sovereign, independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, while I am sure that we all welcome any indication of a more peaceful approach from what undoubtedly has been a clear terrorist organisation for some time, does my noble friend agree that the very minimum we should require from Hamas and others is that they acknowledge the basic right of the state of Israel to exist and to be fully part of the international community, and to respect its democracy?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is right. That is clearly one of the expectations we have in our policy on Hamas.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, the Question refers to the international frontiers of Israel. Do those frontiers include the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord is straying into Foreign Office territory, on which I am not yet an expert. I shall have to get back to him on that, if that is okay.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, while the actions of the military wing of Hamas have been wrong, totally unacceptable and cannot be condoned, is it not important to recognise in political terms that Hamas is a pluralist organisation? Is it not vital to strengthen the more moderate elements within Hamas, particularly at this time of reconciliation between the PLO and Hamas? Should we not remember that in our own history, starting with John Major and pursued by the Labour Government that followed, we began to make progress on a solution in Northern Ireland when it was recognised that we must find ways of talking to the political wing of the IRA?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said earlier, we will not provide a running commentary on any proscribed organisations. I have already laid out some of what we expect from Hamas.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, what is the mechanism by which a proscribed organisation becomes delisted? Does it require a court process to achieve that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it does not require a court process but an application to the Home Secretary.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, it beggars belief that we are discussing, in the centenary week of Balfour, talk of removing Hamas from the terrorist list. The organisation has not renounced terror and it still calls for killing Jews and the destruction of Israel. Does the Minister agree that any reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas, which should be welcomed, should require that Hamas be disarmed, because Israel certainly cannot be expected to negotiate with a terror group that calls for its destruction?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, our policy on Hamas is very clear. The group must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements. We now expect to see credible movement towards these conditions, which remain the benchmark against which its intentions should be judged. We call on those in the region with influence over Hamas to encourage the group to take these steps.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to pursue the specific issue raised in the Question but to raise a more general point. What reviews have the Government undertaken to establish exactly what impact proscribing an organisation actually has, as opposed to what it is intended to have, on the unacceptable activities of those who were in membership of that organisation as opposed to the impact of proscription on the organisation itself?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, what I can say about the impact of proscription is that those groups are illegal entities in this country. They are not allowed to promote their policies or to progress some of the things that they want—for example, the destruction of Israel.