Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 November 2016 be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this order, laid in draft before the House on 22 November 2016, will bring into effect three revised codes of practice issued under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call PACE from now on: Code C, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under PACE; Code H, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under terrorism provisions; and Code D, which concerns the identification of suspects by witnesses and biometric data, for example, fingerprints, DNA and photographs. I will briefly describe what the PACE codes are, how these revised codes come before us today and outline the changes they introduce.
For England and Wales, the statutory provisions of PACE set out the core framework of police powers to detect and investigate crime, and require the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. The eight accompanying codes of practice, A to F, do not create powers but provide rules and procedures for the police to follow when exercising their powers. Together, PACE and the codes establish important safeguards for individuals, which are designed to strike a balance between the need for police to have powers to tackle crime on the one hand and the need for safeguards for suspects and other members of the public on the other. In order to maintain this balance, we regularly update the codes—for example, as we change primary legislation—in the light of new decisions by the courts and to promote developments in operational policing practice.
The three codes before us today were published in draft format in March 2016 for statutory consultation in accordance with Section 67 of PACE. The consultation, which was also open to the public, ran for eight weeks, and the bodies that the Secretary of State is required to consult in accordance with Section 67(4) of PACE, and others, were invited to comment. These others included the Crown Prosecution Service, Liberty—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, here today—Justice and the Youth Justice Board. The drafts, together with an invitation to the public at large to respond, were also published on GOV.UK. A total of 18 responses were received, which is normal for this type of consultation.
In accordance with Section 67 of PACE, the revised codes were laid before this House and in another place together with the draft order and Explanatory Memorandum. Yesterday, the order was approved in Committee in another place, and subject to the order being approved by this House, the three codes will come into force 21 days after the date the order is signed.
The main revision to PACE Code C is to expressly permit the use of live-link communications technology for interpreters. The changes enable interpretation services to be provided by interpreters based at remote locations and allow access to be shared by forces throughout England and Wales. This will avoid interpreters having to travel to individual police stations, and improve the availability of interpreters for all languages. By reducing delays in the investigation, it will enable a more streamlined and cost-effective approach to the administration of justice. The revisions include safeguards for suspects to ensure, as far as practicable, that the fairness of proceedings are not prejudiced by the interpreter not being physically present with the suspect. The provisions therefore require the interpreter’s physical presence unless specified conditions are satisfied and allow live-link interpretation.
Revisions to Code C also reflect the amendment to PACE made by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 that defines a “juvenile” for the purpose of detention under PACE as someone under the age of 18, rather than under the age of 17. This resulted from a government review of the way in which 17 year-olds were treated under PACE and the codes. The review concluded that the age at which a person should be treated as an adult under PACE should be raised from 17 to 18. This accords with the age-related jurisdiction of youth courts and other criminal justice legislation applicable to children.
New provisions also support Section 38(6) of PACE, which requires juveniles who are not released on bail after being charged to be moved to local authority accommodation pending appearance at court. The revisions point out that the certificate given to the court in accordance with Section 38(7) must show why the juvenile was kept at a police station and require these cases to be monitored and supervised by an inspector or above. Separate measures in the Policing and Crime Bill ensure that outstanding provisions of PACE that continue to treat 17 year-olds as adults are amended.
New provisions in Code C permit an appropriate adult to be removed from interview if they prevent proper questioning. When a suspect who is a juvenile or a vulnerable adult is interviewed, the code requires that an independent adult, known as an “appropriate adult”, be called to help. Their job is to help ensure that the suspect understands what is happening and why, and that they are able to exercise their rights and entitlements under PACE and the codes. These new provisions are necessary to ensure consistency with the existing provisions, which have been in Code H since 2006, and they are modelled on paragraph 6.9 of Code C concerning the removal of a solicitor from an interview if they prevent proper questioning. Before an appropriate adult can be removed, an additional safeguard in both codes requires the inspector or superintendent who is called on to determine whether they should be excluded to remind the adult about their role and advise them of the concerns about their behaviour. That advice, if accepted, would then enable the appropriate adult to remain.
The changes to Code C are mirrored in Code H, as applicable, for persons detained under terrorism provisions. This ensures consistency in the provisions that are common to both codes.
In Code D, eye-witness and witness identification procedures are updated to take account of significant changes and developments in case law and police practice, and to address operational concerns raised by the police. Revised video identification provisions clarify and confirm the identification officer’s discretion to use “historic” images of the suspect; to regulate the presence of solicitors at witness viewings; and to direct others—police officers and police civilian staff—to implement any arrangements for identification procedures. The investigating officer’s responsibility concerning the viewing of CCTV and similar images by a witness other than an eye-witness is also clarified.
Other revisions to Code D reflect amendments made by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to PACE concerning the retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles and samples. Revisions to all three codes also highlight the need to check all sources of relevant information in order to establish a detainee’s identity; enable officers to use electronic pocket books and other devices in order to make records required by the Codes; clarify those who are not eligible to act as the appropriate adult for children under 18 and for mentally vulnerable adults; and highlight the requirement under Section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to separate children from adult detainees in police stations and other places of detention by including a link to College of Policing guidance on this matter.
Minor typographical and grammatical corrections have been made, and out-of-date references updated.
The revisions strike a balance between the need to safeguard the rights of suspects while supporting the operational flexibility of the police to investigate crime. They are being introduced to bring codes C, D and H in line with current legislation and to support operational police practice. The revised codes provide invaluable guidance to both police and the public on how the police should use their powers fairly, efficiently and effectively. I commend the order and urge noble Lords to support it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the effect of the order before the House this afternoon. I say at the outset that the Opposition support the order, and that we must always carefully consider these matters and strive to strike the right balance between giving the police and other law enforcement agencies the tools, guidance and procedures to do their job effectively and keep citizens safe, when we are balancing the rights of citizens and ensuring that the rights of suspects and witnesses are protected. This is very much my thinking in how I approach the order and similar matters when they come before this House.
I have a number of questions to ask the Minister and hope that she will be able to answer me today—but, if she cannot, I will of course be very happy for her to write me. I turn first to Code C and the ability to permit the use of live-link communication technology for interpreters. This will allow for interpreters to be based at remote locations and for their services to be used by a number of police forces without the need for travel. I can see how this will help the police by speeding up their investigations. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this facility will be used only in respect of suspects, or will the police be making use of it in respect of witnesses? Is that the intention of the change? Is it envisaged by the department that this will become the norm; will it be used on only limited occasions; or is it somewhere between the two? How will the test of fairness to the suspect be assessed, and what role will there be for the suspect’s solicitor in making representations on the appropriateness of the use of remote translation services?
I move on to the provision to enable an appropriate adult be removed from an interview if they prevent the proper questioning of a subject. An appropriate adult is used when a juvenile or vulnerable adult is being interviewed. They have a specific role: to help the person understand what is happening and to protect their rights under law and the relevant codes. These individuals do a very important job in the justice system, but their role is not to prevent the questioning of suspects. However, there can be cases where there is a very fine line between what could be deemed fair practice and action that could be determined as breaching somebody’s rights. Will there be a role for the suspect’s solicitor in the process of determining whether an appropriate adult should be removed? What would happen if it was viewed that an appropriate adult should be present but, for whatever reason, it was thought that the appropriate adult present at the time had overstepped the line and needed to be removed? Would the interview be suspended until such time as another person could be identified to fulfil that role?
In respect of the electronic pocket books for use by police officers, can the noble Baroness say a little more about the trials that have taken place? It is important that police officers have access to technology that makes their jobs and the application of the law easier and allows for the efficient administration of justice to be done in a timely manner, but we must always be confident that the appropriate safeguards are in place. Very clever people invent, develop and create all sorts of devices, and where they can be used to fight crime, that is welcome—but we must be satisfied that there is no possibility that these devices can be tampered with to produce an inaccurate or untrue picture of what has happened.
There is also the question of the development of technology, which does not stand still. Because something cannot be done at the moment does not mean that it cannot be done in future. How does the noble Baroness plan to ensure that technological developments do not get ahead of the procedures before the House today and the practices of the police and other law enforcement agencies?
In respect of the changes to Code D that alter the way in which witness identification is undertaken, the change effectively deletes the old annexes A and E. We need a bit more evidence for why that is necessary, so I hope that the Minister will give a full explanation when she responds. With those questions, I say again that we are happy to support the order.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, I have just one brief question. Suspects under the age of 18 are to be looked after by the local authority. What security measures will be taken to ensure that they are safe and do not get away?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for their questions. Perhaps I can deal with the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, first while it is fresh in my mind. The usual safeguards for young children in detention would be employed to ensure that a young person did not get away.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the use of live link and whether it would become the norm or used only on limited occasions. The police will use the live-link technology only in certain circumstances judged on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the representation given to the suspect by an appropriate adult and a solicitor. The noble Lord also asked whether the facility would be used only in relation to suspects. I can answer in the affirmative yes, not for the witnesses. He asked about safeguards being ensured and the role of the solicitor. Solicitors must be asked if they wish to make representations to be considered by the police. If there is any doubt the inspector must authorise.
If the noble Lord would like me to go through the conditions, I will do so. Before interview, the suspect’s solicitor, where legal advice is requested, and an appropriate adult for any juvenile or vulnerable adult, must be asked about their views on live-link interpretation. The representations for the interpreter to be present may be made at any time before and during the interview. If there is any doubt about the suspect’s ability to adequately cope with the live-link arrangements during the interview, the physical presence of the interpreter will be required, unless an inspector, having considered the circumstances—in particular, the availability of an interpreter, representations from the suspect’s solicitor, the appropriate adult’s impact on the suspect and the evidential implications—authorises live-link interpretation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
It is very kind of the Minister to give way. She said that it would not be the case for witnesses, but could she explain why? At an interview, the witness and the suspect might both need interpreters, so I understand that you might want to bring the live link in to speed things up. If you have a witness with the same language problems—I think that the Minister can see the point that I am making.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understand the noble Lord’s point, but at the moment it is just for suspects. It may well be that we will consider future codes that will extend it to witnesses—but not at this time.
The noble Lord also asked about the use of electronic pocket books and recording devices—and he took a very pragmatic approach to the need to move on with technology. He made the point about what happens if there are errors. I suppose that that is a risk in any method of recording. It is not good practice to have errors, but we are human. The likelihood is just as risky in electronic recording as it is in written recording.
In fact, the PACE codes apply only to suspects—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who should have taken this question, is nodding. I do not know why I did not think of that. Those codes apply only to suspects and not to witnesses.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I made the point about technological developments. I am conscious that we might not be able to do something today but that people are very clever and invent all sorts of things in future—so how are we going to keep up to speed with those sorts of changes? What does the department do?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The code talks about electronic recording devices. I would imagine that within the code that in some way attempts to keep up with technology.
Passport Applications: Digitisation
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received from the Photo Marketing Association and the Imaging Alliance about their proposals to digitise the passport application process, and what consideration they have given to enhancing and protecting passport security as part of the digitisation process.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been working closely with the Imaging Alliance and previously with the Photo Marketing Association to consider their proposals to further enhance HM Passport Office’s digital passport application process. HM Passport Office works alongside the International Organization for Standardisation to ensure that the UK passport remains a highly secure and trusted document. System developments will enhance security and keep ahead of any evolving threats of fraud.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but when I met the Imaging Alliance four weeks ago it did not feel that it was being as fully consulted as she suggests. As I understand it, the Government are seeking to arrange that any of us can send what is essentially a selfie to the Passport Office to form our passport. The passport is the gold standard as far as identity assurance in this country is concerned. Why is the opportunity not being taken to prevent a situation in which people can Photoshop images and to make sure that there is proper certification about when an image has been taken, that it was taken in a proper way and that it is a secure and viable basis on which we can prove our identity?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that security standards are paramount, whether under the old system, as we can call it, or under the new digital system. I reassure the noble Lord that security standards are exactly the same under both systems. The USA and New Zealand allow people to take their own photograph. A photograph identified as a selfie that does not meet those security standards and requirements is rejected in the examination process. As the noble Lord is right to point out, that gold standard is paramount for the robustness of and the confidence in this very important document.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Does this Question not take us straight back to the issue of authenticity of information in national identity documentation? Do Ministers realise that once an amateur takes a photograph, we could end up with civil servants arguing about whether that photograph is an exact image, whether it is dark, whether it was taken at the right angle, and whether it presents an image of the quality necessary to be put into an official document, with the result that they may end up having to return it to the sender for the sender to resubmit it? Is that not a waste of Civil Service time? It will cost the state money.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord points out precisely the criteria that are used to measure quality and are required for photographs. Those security standards are no different in the online application process than they were in the old paper process. There was no more risk of the customer getting it wrong under the old system than there is under the new system.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, under the old system, as it is called, somebody has to certify on the back of the photograph that it is a true likeness of the passport holder. How is that going to be achieved if it is a completely digital application process?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the current service, which has been in place since April last year, is available only to adults over the age of 26 who have previously held a British passport. That is where the rigour is in the new process.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what is the difference between a dodgy selfie and a genuine selfie?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, a dodgy selfie is one that does not meet the rigorous requirements of a passport photo.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, with the increasing threats of terrorism and of identity theft, does the Minister agree that the Question highlights the need for a proper biometric identity card?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Government have rejected the idea of an identity card, but noble Lords will notice that when they go through passport gates now their face is compared with the photograph on the passport. The machines that do the face recognition, which is a form of biometrics, are very accurate indeed.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, is it not a fact that a photograph is merely a rather unsophisticated form of biometrics and that the only safe way of doing this is for the biometrics of any individual to be held centrally? When a person seeks to be identified, the person trying to identify them can, online, compare the biometrics of the person in front of them with those held centrally. That means that you cannot use a fake card or anything else. You need not an identity card but a number, with the biometrics attached centrally to that number.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There are a number of biometrics through which a person can be compared—it could be a photograph or fingerprints. The biometrics that we use on the British passport are very robust.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I almost get the impression that the noble Baroness is saying that we have identity cards, but we simply call them passports. To go back to the Question, she seemed to give the Answer that the new system is exactly the same as the old one. I am not knocking the advances, as with facial recognition you have an electronic means of verifying that the individual in front of you is the person they say they are. However, that was clearly also true with old-fashioned photographs, which were much more difficult to manipulate. The problem surely is that digital photographs are much easier to manipulate and the possibility of fraud rises. I do not believe they are exactly the same, and if she wants to persist in that argument—I am sure it is what her brief says—I would be grateful if she would write to us with a little more explanation of the security measures that guarantee the validity of the electronic image.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord suggests that a passport is the same as an identity card, but actually it is a form of ensuring that the person’s identity is what they say it is.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
A passport is a form of identity document. Whether you want to call it an identity document or a passport, it is a form of identity documentation. The noble Lord is absolutely right that digital photographs are easy to manipulate, but paper photographs are actually as easily manipulable, should someone wish to do so. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Policing and Crime Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsWednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 91-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reasons and amendments (PDF, 109KB) - (17 Jan 2017)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 24 and 159, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 24A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as the House is aware, Amendment 24 would require the Prime Minister to proceed with what is commonly referred to as the Leveson 2 inquiry into the relationships between the police and the media. When the House last debated this issue at Report stage on 30 November, I drew the House’s attention to the likely financial implications of the new clause, given that part 1 of the Leveson inquiry cost in excess of £5 million. In disagreeing with Amendments 24 and 159, the House of Commons has done so on the basis of financial privilege. This was the second occasion on which the Commons has rejected—both times by a substantial majority—an amendment to the Bill on this issue. The Companion to the Standing Orders makes it clear that in such cases the Lords do not insist on their amendment.
To that extent, I therefore welcome Motion A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, but while Amendment 24B is clearly different in terms to Amendment 24, it none the less still seeks to bind Ministers’ hands and effectively compels the Government to proceed with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. This is not how the Inquiries Act 2005 is intended to operate, and it is difficult to see why we should make special provision for one particular inquiry established under that Act. The 2005 Act already includes provision for changes to be made to the terms of reference of an inquiry and for the termination of an inquiry. Under the Act, the responsible Minister must consult the chair of the inquiry before changing the terms of reference or terminating the inquiry and must then notify Parliament.
In the same way as a Minister of the Crown is best placed to decide whether to establish an inquiry under the 2005 Act, we believe that the responsible Minister is also best placed to determine the public interest both for and against the continuation of an inquiry. Accordingly, we should not now be putting in place additional hurdles over and above those already set out in the 2005 Act.
I want to stress that, in putting forward Motion A, the Government’s case goes wider than simply one of cost. As I argued on Report, the Government are firmly of the view that, given the extent of the criminal investigations related to this issue that have taken place since the Leveson inquiry was established, and given the implementation of the recommendations following part 1, including reforms within the police and the press, it is appropriate that we now consider whether proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest.
It is for this reason that we launched a consultation on 1 November to help inform our further consideration of this issue. That consultation closed on 10 January, and it is estimated that we have received more than 140,000 individual responses as well as a petition estimated to contain more than 130,000 signatures. Noble Lords will be aware that an application has been made to judicially review the consultation. While I cannot comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, the Government have committed not to take any final decisions relating to the consultation until these legal proceedings have concluded.
Given the process that we have set in train for considering whether to proceed with Leveson part 2, and the fact that further legislation is not required should we decide to proceed with the inquiry, I put it to noble Lords that there are further good grounds for not continuing to press these amendments. As I have said, the elected House has already rejected an amendment on this issue on two separate occasions. I put it to noble Lords that we should not now send back to the Commons a revised amendment which would simply invite a further rejection. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
When I was young at the Bar there used to be a judge whose concurring judgments were commendably brief—he would simply say, “I agree”. I can say that about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I agree with him—and would add a few words. I declare an interest because I have given evidence in the consultation on why Section 40 is, in my view, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to freedom of speech and should not be brought into force. I have not given evidence on the other question in the consultation to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred, upon which many views have been expressed. I agree with what the noble Lord said about that.
As I have said again and again in debates in this House, Parliament has not shown itself to be fair minded in the way it amended two Bills in order to create a scheme to bully the newspapers into entering a regulatory framework other than the one now being admirably well conducted by Lord Justice Moses—IPSO. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has said, we now have an effective system of voluntary press regulation and the state and politicians ought to give it breathing space. I wish to make that clear.
When I was young I began believing in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. That is why I am a Liberal. I remain a Liberal today, and that is why I am sympathetic to the Government’s position.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I shall respond first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He is right to assert that Sir Brian Leveson will be consulted formally in due course in his role as the inquiry chair before any decision is taken. The noble Lord also made a point about the cost and other issues that have already been addressed. Lord Justice Leveson said:
“Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment … If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct”.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about Parliament voting on part 2 of the inquiry, in fact Parliament did not vote on part 2; the inquiry was established by Ministers under the powers of the 2005 Act. Parliament voted on Section 40, but in this Motion we are talking not about Section 40, but about Leveson 2.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the Government already deciding to abandon part 2, as I hope I have explained, we have not made a decision on this; we want to take a view on it as part of the ongoing consultation. It is five years since the inquiry was established and since the scope of part 2 was set. We think a consultation is needed before a decision is made on whether proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry, on either its original or its amended terms of reference, is still in the public interest. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as I said, we will consult with Sir Brian Leveson formally in his role as the inquiry chair before any decision is taken.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and other noble Lords who have helped illuminate the issue we recur to. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is perhaps a little optimistic in imagining that IPSO is a model of self-regulation. Perhaps he meant to say a model of self-interested regulation. The point is that Leveson provides not regulation, but an audit of the standard of self-regulation. As we all know, IPSO has refused to have its process audited. Its so-called independent review of what it did was to terms of reference that it provided and funded by itself. Just as we think a free market requires companies that are—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 96 and 302, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 96A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, when we last debated what is now Amendment 96 on Report in December, I pointed to its potentially significant financial implications. The House of Commons has disagreed with the amendment on the basis of financial privilege. Given the normal conventions of your Lordships’ House, I trust that noble Lords will not insist on it.
However, let me assure noble Lords that this is by no means the end of the matter. While, in the usual way, the House of Commons has cited financial privilege as the only reason for disagreeing with the amendment, it has never been our contention that this is the sole ground for our believing that the new clause should not be added to the Bill. The Government’s view remains that the amendment is premature in that it pre-empts the outcome of the review by Bishop James Jones into the experience of the Hillsborough families and the Government’s subsequent consideration of Bishop Jones’s findings.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have argued that the issue goes wider than Hillsborough. We do not dispute that, but the experience of the Hillsborough families, which will include the issue of legal representation at the original and subsequent inquests, is highly relevant to the broader question and it is right therefore that we take Bishop Jones’s current review into account in deciding this question.
As noble Lords may have seen, the review’s terms of reference were published earlier today. They state:
“The Review and Report will cover the history of the Hillsborough families’ experiences throughout the whole period, ranging from the conduct of past police investigations, through their engagement with public authorities, to the current investigations”.
The report will therefore cover a wide range of issues, including, as I have said, the families’ experiences of the various legal proceedings. Bishop James Jones will present his final report to the Home Secretary, including any points of learning that he may choose to highlight for the Home Secretary’s consideration.
It is envisaged that Bishop Jones will complete his review and produce his report in the spring of this year. I can assure the House that the Government will then give very careful consideration to his conclusions and any points of learning contained in his report.
In the knowledge that this issue remains firmly on the Government’s agenda and that there will, I am sure, be opportunities to debate it further in the light of the report, I invite the House to agree to Motion B. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I accept that the Commons Speaker has also certified the Lords amendment on this issue of parity of funding as engaging financial privilege and that the Commons reason for disagreeing with the amendment is that it would involve a charge on public funds. I want nevertheless to raise one or two points with the Government in light of what the Minister has said.
During consideration of the amendment in the Commons last week, the Minister there referred to the report by Bishop James Jones and said:
“Our view remains that we should await the report, expected this spring, from Bishop James Jones on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. The Opposition have argued that this issue goes beyond Hillsborough. I do not dispute that, but the experiences of the Hillsborough families will have significant relevance for other families facing different tragic circumstances, and the issue of legal representation at inquests will undoubtedly be one aspect of those experiences. Bishop James’s report will provide learning that could be of general application, so it is entirely right that we do not now seek to pre-empt his review, but instead consider this issue in the light of his conclusions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/17; col. 249.]
Those words make it pretty clear that Bishop James Jones has not been asked to look at the general issue of representation and funding at inquests where the police are represented, which was the subject of the Lords amendment. He has been asked to look at the experiences of the Hillsborough families. The Minister in the Commons stated that the report would provide learning that could be of general application.
Will the Minister say quite clearly one way or the other whether the Government consider that the terms of reference which Bishop James Jones has been given require him also to look at the issue of representation and funding at inquests generally where the police are represented? Alternatively, if the Government consider the terms of reference to be ambiguous on this point, has Bishop James Jones now been asked by the Government to address in his review the issue of representation and funding for families generally and not confine himself to the experiences of the Hillsborough families? Bearing in mind the way the Government have used the existence of the Bishop James Jones review and the forthcoming report as an argument for not going down the road of the amendment that was passed in this House, which deals with the position at inquests generally, I think there will be some concern if, when the report comes out, it is clear that it relates only to the experiences of the Hillsborough families and that the issue of whether it should or could have wider implications for representation and funding for families at inquests generally has not been considered. I would be grateful for some very clear and specific answers from the Government to all the questions I have just asked.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, seemed to suggest that the Government are using the Bishop Jones report as some sort of excuse to not respond to what is suggested by the amendment. Of course, I will hear what my noble friend has to say, but as I understand the position, the question is being considered very seriously by the Government but it would be rather strange not to consider a report of this magnitude dealing with the best-known example of a series of inquests with improved legal representation before coming to the conclusion, to which they may or may not come, that a response to the amendment is appropriate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords who have made points on this Motion. My noble friend Lord Faulks is absolutely right that the whole point of establishing an inquiry or a review—one of such magnitude on an event that will be ever seared on people’s minds; that is, the horrors of Hillsborough—is to learn the lessons of that event so that they can be applied to similar cases in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, is not in the Chamber, but I was reflecting on the lessons that local authorities learned from the terrible death of Victoria Climbié at the hands of her relatives. These reviews always have that wider learning that can be applied in the future. The terms of reference do not require Bishop Jones to look wider but the learning from the review will have wider application.
I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the coroner. We talked at length both in Committee and on Report about an independent assessment of these matters. Of course, for me to respond about whether or not that is the right way would pre-empt the review so I will not go there. But I hope that noble Lords find those comments helpful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 134 and 305, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 134A and 305A in lieu.
(1) In the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 —
(a) in section 4 (putting people in fear of violence), in subsection (4)(a), for “five years” substitute “ten years”;
(b) in section 4A (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), in subsection (5)(a), for “five years” substitute “ten years”.
(2) In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, in section 32 (racially or religiously aggravated harassment etc), in subsection (4)(b) (which specifies the penalty on conviction on indictment for an offence under that section which consists of a racially or religiously aggravated offence under section 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997), for “seven years” substitute “14 years”.
(3) The amendments made by this section apply only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) Where the course of conduct constituting an offence is found to have occurred over a period of 2 or more days, or at some time during a period of 2 or more days, the offence must be taken for the purposes of subsection (3) to have been committed on the last of those days.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the House will recall that Amendment 134 sought to increase the maximum penalty for the more serious stalking offence, where the behaviour of the offender puts a person in fear of violence, from the current five years to 10 years. The amendment would also increase the maximum penalty for the racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence from the current 10 years to 14 years. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but she is not in her place so I thank her in her absence, for introducing that amendment and explaining her concerns about the current maximum penalties during the debate on this amendment on Report.
The Government have reflected carefully on that debate and wish to ensure that the criminal justice system deals with these offences properly. The Government continue to keep maximum penalties under review and are ready to increase them where there is evidence that they are not sufficient to protect victims. Current sentencing practice suggests that, in the majority of cases, the maximum penalty of five years is sufficient to deal with serious stalking. In a small number of the most serious cases, however, courts have sentenced near to the current maximum. For those most serious cases, we are persuaded that judges should be able to pass a higher sentence than the current five-year maximum. This would afford greater protection to victims and be commensurate with the serious harm caused by these cases. The Government therefore tabled Amendment 134A, to which the Commons agreed, which replicates with some fine tuning the provisions of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
However, we are going further. As I said during debate on Report, we are keen to retain consistency between penalties for related offences. The Commons amendment in lieu will also therefore increase the maximum penalty for the related Section 4 harassment offence of putting a person in fear of violence. In line with standard practice, Amendment 134A also provides that the increase in maximum penalties for these offences will apply only to crimes committed on or after the date of commencement. As the Commons amendment in lieu builds on Lords Amendment 134, I trust that in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the whole House will be content with the substitution. I therefore beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I really disagree with my noble friend on this matter. There is absolutely no justification for increasing the maximum sentence, and I have two reasons for saying that. First, I do not believe that the increase will provide an additional deterrent. Either the person in question is rational, in which case a maximum sentence of five years is a sufficient deterrent, or they are not rational, in which case it will make precious little difference. I note my noble friend’s point that the judges have rarely sentenced at the higher end of the existing maximum. My other point is a general one. I am very concerned about overcrowding in prisons. There has been a tendency to increase the sentences imposed by the courts. The newspapers and Parliament are responsible for that in part, and I do not wish to see Parliament increasing the pressure on our prisons. This is a small contribution to that, and I am bound to say I am against it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, to address the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the maximum penalties and overcrowding in prisons, the prison population has remained relatively stable since 2010. The Justice Secretary is clear that she wants to see more early intervention and a reduction in reoffending. To that end, we have launched a White Paper outlining our plans to make prisons places of safety and reform, and we have announced a comprehensive review of our probation system.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, made, I fear I will disappoint him again. It is a matter for the court and the CPS to determine the points that he makes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 136 to 142 and 307, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 136A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the elected House has disagreed with these Lords amendments by a substantial majority of 100. In inviting this House not to insist on these amendments, the Government recognise that there are legitimate concerns about the operation of the victims’ code—I stress that—and that there is scope for improvement, but I put it to noble Lords that seeking to shoehorn these new clauses into the Bill when they have not had the benefit of detailed scrutiny either in this House or in the other place is not an appropriate way forward. This House rightly prides itself on its effective scrutiny of legislation. In the case of these amendments, however, we have had what amounts to, at best, a short Second Reading-style debate on the case for strengthening victims’ rights.
While the underlying objective of these amendments—namely, improving the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system—is one we can all wholeheartedly support, the Government continue to have serious concerns regarding their substance. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, now wishes to focus on just two amendments rather than on all seven new clauses added to the Bill on Report but, as with the others, we foresee a number of problems with Amendments 137 and 138. I thank her for meeting me yesterday, together with the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, but, as we discussed in relation to Amendment 137, the victims’ code—a statutory code of practice—includes a wide range of entitlements for victims of crime, including being entitled to receive information on their case. For example, under the code, victims should be informed about: the police investigation, such as if a suspect is arrested and charged and any bail conditions imposed; if a suspect is to be prosecuted or given an out-of-court disposal; the time, date, location and outcome of any court hearings; and any appeal by an offender against his or her conviction or sentence.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we, too, support the objectives behind the amendment that was moved so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the reasons that she herself set out. We also associate ourselves with the comments made by the noble Baroness about Jill Saward.
The issue is that the current victims’ code is not legally enforceable and there is clear evidence that it is not being applied and acted on by the relevant agencies to the extent that was clearly intended—to the detriment of the victims it was intended to help. The amendment provides for victims’ rights to be placed on a statutory footing and for the Secretary of State to address the issue of training for all relevant professionals and agencies on the impact of crime on victims.
I share the view that the Government, in the statement made by the Minister today, have been considerably more helpful and constructive in their response than they were during consideration of the Lords amendment in the Commons last week.
Finally, I, too, express my thanks to the Minister for her willingness to meet us. I hope that we have reached a stage at which there will be some accord on this issue.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not think that there was a lack of accord. In fact the whole way through these discussions I felt that we were seeking the same ends; it was just a matter of how we got there. I add my tribute to that of the noble Baroness to Jill Saward. I read about her the other day, and what she went through was absolutely heart-breaking as well as devastating while her father and then fiancé were downstairs. How she gathered the strength to not only waive her right to anonymity but help so many other people is quite inspiring and not something that everybody would feel able to do.
Following discussions today, yesterday and previously, we have reached a consensus on this and I hope that the words that I read out have given noble Lords confidence as we move forward to publishing this strategy within the next 12 months. I thank all noble Lords for their part in this debate.
Baroness Brinton
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and thank again the Minister for the words that she said from the Dispatch Box, which meet my concerns at the moment. I shall be interested to see the result of the review and consultation. If we feel that there is not strong enough legislation coming through afterwards, I suspect that more amendments will appear in further course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
European Union: Freedom of Movement
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the free movement of persons for work and other purposes is provided for in the treaties and CJEU case law and largely governed by the free movement directive. All member states are bound by this directive, including the UK, and implement this through their respective domestic legislation. The directive sets out that in order for an EU citizen to reside in another member state beyond three months, they must be exercising a treaty right; that is, working, self-employed, self-sufficient or a student.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister’s Answer not got to the nub of this? The three-month practice is what most countries in the EU follow—namely, that you can stay for three months and, if you have not got a job by then, off you go. We do not do that. Surely if we adhered to the same practice as most other EU countries we would be in a much better position to negotiate a sensible way forward.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government do not comment on other member states’ implementation of the free movement directive. We are about to begin these negotiations and it would wrong to set out our position in advance, but the Government are clear that at every step of these negotiations we will work to ensure the best possible outcome for the UK.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have been reading in the newspapers that the EU is demanding that we will have to give free movement of labour in return for access to the single market, but the United States has access to the single market and I am sure that it does not give free movement of labour between Europe and the United States.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, that will certainly be determined in negotiations as we exit the EU.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister, rather than answering a question she was not asked, answer the question she was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs? He asked why we do not now apply the three-month rule, not what we will apply when we have a new relationship. I understand that she is not prepared to say that, but will she now answer his question and say whether she thinks that if we decided now to start applying it we would put ourselves in a much better position when we start the negotiations?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think I did answer the noble Lord’s question. Each member state implements the free movement directive through their respective domestic legislation, all of which have different nuances within them.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that confirmation that EU law on free movement is sound and not a charter for layabouts or benefit scroungers and that, if the strict conditions for eligibility are not enforced, that is a failure not of Brussels but of the UK Government and notably the Home Office, which the Prime Minister presided over for six years. Will the Minister offer the further reassurance that EU free movers contribute enormously to our economy, to the Treasury and to our society, and that it is a two-way street, with millions of UK citizens having taken advantage of EU free movement rights?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not disagree at all that the EU free movers contribute to the economy. We were talking yesterday about doctors, nurses and various other people who contribute to the public sector. I cannot remember the first part of the question, but I think I answered it previously. Each country enshrines the free movement directive in its own legislation.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness will not comment on the detail of discussions in response to my noble friend Lord Dubs, can I repeat the question I asked her on 30 November? Do the Government make any distinction between the free movement of persons and the free movement of labour? Could she answer without conferring?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am not entirely sure, but all those distinctions and discussions that will be taking place will be solidified in the fullness of time as we go through this process.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Will the 180-day tax residency rule be applied, with all those working in nation states paying their taxes in the countries in which they are resident?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
All people who are resident in a country for more than a certain number of days a year are liable to pay the taxes of that country.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does not the fascinating Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reveal that the so-called absolute—fundamental freedom of movement of labour—is not fundamental at all? There are all sorts of variations developing, particularly under modern movement conditions. Does the Minister accept that those who keep arguing that this is a binary choice between absolute freedom and being in the single market simply have not grasped the reality of the situation at all?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend raises the point about different countries’ implementation of the directive although we have not, as a Government, done a comparative analysis. However, he is absolutely right.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness write to me, and put a copy of her letter in the Library, setting out in detail the Government’s reason for failing to implement and for failing to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Dubs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is not a failure to implement; it is a difference in each country’s implementation of its legislation. This country is more than generous in its implementation of that directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, after Brexit, why will we not be like the 168 other countries on the planet which have not made the mistake of joining the EU and which simply decide for themselves who comes in, how long they stay and on what conditions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as we exit the European Union, one of the balances to be struck is about controlling immigration and at the same time ensuring that we have the skills in this country needed to meet our economy.
Brexit: EU Nationals’ Right to Remain
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will confirm whether those non-British European Union nationals employed in the agriculture, caring and hospitality sectors will be given the right to remain in the United Kingdom following Brexit.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to secure the status of EU nationals already living here. The only circumstance in which that would not be possible is if British citizens’ rights in other EU member states were not protected in return.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
Is it not time, though, that the Government dropped this ridiculous pretence that there is a trade-off here? The reality is that significant sectors of our economy, such as caring, hospitality and areas of agriculture, would virtually collapse if non-British nationals did not remain and work here. There is massive anxiety out there in the country, among employer and employee. Is it not time that the Government did the right thing, both morally and commercially, and gave these individuals the right to remain?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government have been absolutely clear that we will seek to reach an agreement on this issue at an early stage of negotiations with the EU. I totally dispute the notion of a trade-off, because the EU’s refusal to guarantee the status of UK nationals elsewhere in the EU prior to negotiations shows that the Government have been absolutely right not to give away the guarantee of status for EU citizens in the UK. As the Prime Minister has said, that would have left UK citizens high and dry.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I remind my honourable friend that for the agriculturalists and horticulturalists in Lincolnshire and adjoining counties access to migrant labour is very important indeed? Without migrant labour it is probable that many of those businesses would not survive.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend—I am proud to be his honourable friend. Of course, this will be part and parcel of what we discuss. The Government totally acknowledge where the skills gaps lie, where temporary labour might be needed, and that will be important.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, while it is quite right that migrant workers in these hospitality and caring industries are important, does the Minister appreciate that tens of thousands of European citizens work in our health service? Indeed, our health service would fall apart—I am not exaggerating—if it were not for these workers. Can we not show them the hand of friendship?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Prime Minister has been very reasonable in her position. We are absolutely welcoming to EU residents who come here and have said that we will protect their status as long as that is done in return. When the noble Lord talks about the proportion of NHS workers, he is absolutely right: almost 10% of doctors and 6.3% of nurses in England are from an EU country. We are very mindful of that.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, are there any plans for the Government to ask for a transitional period after the terms of a Brexit deal are negotiated? This was asked for by members of the financial services sector at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday. It would allow not merely the financial services sector but hospitality and other industries to plan for the future, rather than have to take pre-emptive action now and risk revenue to Her Majesty’s Exchequer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of the financial sector to the UK economy. We have the largest financial sector in the world. The Prime Minister will lay out those plans in due course as we exit the European Union.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are key workers in the health sector already looking for jobs because of the uncertainty, fearful that 12 or 18 months down the road there will be tremendous competition with people looking back to their home countries for jobs? Will she do everything she can to end that uncertainty?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am sure that the Prime Minister will lay out the position in a clear manner as we move towards the triggering of Article 50 by the end of March, which is not very long to go.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I feel a bit naive in this. Perhaps the Minister could explain. Supposing the EU countries decide not to do a deal to protect the interests of British nationals abroad, will the response be to say that those who are here will have to leave? We will face exactly the same problem that has been mentioned by several speakers—that we cannot maintain our agricultural, hospitality, health service and university industries. If that is the case, it does not sound to me like a bargaining point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as we conduct our negotiations, it must be a priority to regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe but also to allow British companies and British public services to employ people with the correct skills, and companies to trade with the single market in goods and services.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement in the recent CBI report that we need,
“a system informed by business rather than imposed on business”,
and that this is,
“essential to the future economic growth of the UK”?
Are the Government talking and listening to employers? What have they had to say about the £1,000 levy about which we have heard today?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that she wants to hear from all sectors and from anybody who is interested in the subject of Brexit. All opinions and cases made to her will be listened to, and she will form her views accordingly.
Pitchford Inquiry
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a person may be designated as a core participant in the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing if they are currently under surveillance, or subject to data access requests, for activities unrelated to any investigation of a serious criminal offence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the designation of core participants is a matter for the chairman of the undercover policing inquiry. The chairman will consider the inquiry’s terms of reference and the requirements of the Inquiry Rules 2006 when making his decisions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for her response. It does not answer my Question, obviously. The problem is whether or not the police are still spying on people they have spied on before, who are now subject to an inquiry. Has the Minister asked for assurance from the police that they do not still have those core participants under surveillance? If she has, has she told the inquiry chair, Lord Justice Pitchford, who really ought to know?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I have not told the police. Obviously, I will not ask from the Dispatch Box whether the noble Baroness has asked the police but perhaps we could have a conversation about it afterwards.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what she regards as appropriate oversight by police and crime commissioners of the undercover policing carried out by the police forces for which they are responsible?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, with regard to professional practice, the College of Policing published the Undercover Policing Authorised Professional Practice for consultation, and the guidance sets out the roles and responsibilities of police officers. Obviously, the PCC has oversight of the work of both chief constables and police officers.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I was one of a number of MPs at the time who were named by an undercover police officer as having had a file on them. This was confirmed to me in person by Scotland Yard as being entirely innocent in my case, which some Members of this House may be sceptical about. Is that body of legislators—we were all legislators in the House of Commons at the time—being considered by the Pitchford inquiry? I think it should be.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is absolutely innocent. I never doubted it. Clearly, the Home Office sponsors the work of the inquiry but we do not direct its work. I do not know whether the noble Lord has asked the inquiry whether that is its intention.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, there are about 9 million custody photographs held on a police database, and the police cannot say how many of those pictures are of innocent people and how many are of people who have been convicted. What safeguards are in place to ensure that police databases comply with human rights law and data protection laws, particularly when they appear to contain personal details of those who have never been charged and convicted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there is a strict code of ethics on how people’s photographs are held if somebody has not been convicted. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord further on the matter that he has raised.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government accept that it is possible that the findings of the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing could lead to revisions or amendments being needed to the recently passed Investigatory Powers Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will not anticipate the outcome of the inquiry, or indeed the report that is due in the spring of next year. Nor will I therefore predetermine what might or might not be in terms of the IP Act.
Gender Pay Gap
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of findings by the Fawcett Society that at the current rate of progress it will take over 60 years to close the gender pay gap, what steps they are taking to achieve pay parity more quickly.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, at 18.1% the gender pay gap is the lowest on record, but no gap is acceptable. Increasing transparency will accelerate progress. Delivering on our manifesto commitment, we recently laid regulations requiring large employers to publish their gender pay gap annually. The government-commissioned and independently led Hampton-Alexander review has set challenging targets to ensure that by 2020, 33% of senior leadership positions in the FTSE 100 and 33% of FTSE 350 board directors are women.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I am very grateful for that Answer. I am sure it is true to say that every Government over the last 40 years have sought to tackle this problem, and the gender pay gap regulations referred to by the Minister and published this month are no exception. The notes to the regulations specify that failure to comply with these regulations constitutes an unlawful act. What sanction do the Government have in mind for the EHRC to impose? Will it be a gentle slap on the wrist or should transgressors be hit where it hurts—in their pockets?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we do not intend to create additional civil penalties at this time but we can review that if levels of compliance are not satisfactory. As the noble Baroness said, non-compliance will constitute an unlawful act and will fall within the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s existing enforcement powers under the Equality Act 2006. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing up this question and I am pleased to say that the trajectory is heading in a very positive direction.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I started working in 1970, when the Minister was just three years old. Of course, that was also the year of the Equal Pay Act. I would have been devastated had I discovered that, almost half a century later, I would be standing here still with an 18% pay gap. I ask the Minister to do two things. First, will she make sure that government investment is geared towards getting women into the highest-paid professions and industries, because, at the moment, women are mostly in low-paid industry? Secondly, could she possibly tell her Treasury colleagues that, through almost 90% of their tax and benefits changes relating to women, they are only adding insult to injury?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government, starting with the previous Prime Minister, are most certainly committed to the very ends that the noble Baroness seeks. Not only are women contributing to tax, but they also bring the huge benefit of increasing GDP in this country.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, recent reports by Deloitte and the British Computer Society have underscored that where women are educated in STEM subjects and then pursue careers in that field, the gender pay gap is at its narrowest. Does the Minister agree that there are still huge cultural, social and other barriers that discourage many women from pursuing those opportunities and avenues? Would the Government be willing to put some resources behind trying to break down those barriers in an effective way, because leadership is surely required in this area?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My daughter has just graduated in a STEM subject and is now working with one of the big four accountancy firms. That firm is going to great lengths to improve the diversity of its workforce. Some companies are much better than others at encouraging diversity, but I look forward to the day when diversity is the norm and those who do not engage in this agenda stand out by their lack of doing so.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
This is really a worldwide issue. Is the Minister aware that one of the strongest forces for promoting pay equality and gender equality generally is the Commonwealth organisation, although there are many countries in the Commonwealth that are backsliding? What plans are being made for co-ordinating Whitehall departments to prepare for the Women’s Forum in 2018 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting here in London, at which gender equality and pay will be a major feature?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That forum will be very beneficial in tackling this issue because, as my noble friend says, there are both good and bad practices across the Commonwealth. The actual detail of cross-government work I do not have at my fingertips, but I will be very happy to write to my noble friend on this.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I would be grateful if the Minister indicated what special measures the Government may be taking in the public sector, where they have both direct and indirect control, and whether they have any plans to deal with outsourced work, much of which is given to the private sector, where equal pay does not prevail.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the regulations we laid at the beginning of December, which we will roll out to include the public sector as well. The previous Government went to huge lengths to get equal representation on boards. Of course, our aspiration is for women to get to the highest levels of industry. Our aim is for women to represent 33% of FTSE 100 boards by the end of 2020.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government for their work in this regard. Does my noble friend the Minister accept that women’s representation on public quoted companies, while higher than in the past, is still less than in the political field? Can we learn from the examples of Sweden, Spain and other countries, where they have a higher executive as well as non-executive representation on public quoted companies?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is right to point that out. Five years ago we came to this issue almost from a standing start: the representation of both women and BME people on boards was pitiful. We have a long way to go on BME representation, but in those five years we got from a very low figure to more than 26% of women on boards. However, we have further to go.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Does the Minister agree that it would be a useful discipline to impose quotas for the number of women on boards if further progress is not made? Do the current Prime Minister and Government agree that this would be a useful backstop?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I remember the previous Prime Minister saying this. One of his key strengths was trying to achieve things without having to legislate, and we succeeded on the issue of women on boards. The current Prime Minister very much supports the diversity of both BME people and women on boards, and the regulations we have laid underpin the strength of feeling on this subject.
Prevent Strategy
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are assessing and evaluating the success of the Prevent Strategy deradicalisation programme following the referral of approximately 4,000 people last year.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, since 2012 over 1,000 people have received support through Channel, the voluntary and confidential programme which provides support for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. The vast majority of those people went on to leave the programme with no further terrorist-related concerns.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I extend my condolences and those of these Benches to the victims of the atrocities that happened in Berlin and Zurich last night. Our thoughts and prayers are with those families. After a terrible year of terrorist attacks around the world, the people of this country want to feel confident that the Government’s counter-radicalisation strategy is making us safer. Is the Minister confident that, despite the concerns of many professionals—some of whom claim that it is counterproductive—it is working, is the correct strategy and carries public support?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I add my condolences to those of the noble Baroness to all the victims in Zurich, in Turkey and, of course, recently in Jordan. Those—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Sorry, my Lords—Berlin. It must be a terrible time for those families coming up to Christmas. As to public confidence in whether the programme is working, we are confident that it is. This country remains a tolerant and inclusive society for people to live in and we must not be poisoned by the words and actions of those who seek to disrupt it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, every day one can see on the web a mass of efforts by Daesh to recruit people in the West, telling them to kill people—by gun, knife, lorry, car, whatever. We have some of the best people in the world working in the web environment. Does the Minister believe that we are doing as much as we should to stop this, to take down these sites, to get attribution of those who are doing some of these things and to make actual attacks—taking down main servers and hard drives, which we are able to do, getting in among them and indeed spreading separate propaganda, dissention, worry and concern?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, not only are we doing enough but we are leading the way in all that the noble Lord has talked about: disruption of some of the online activity and the counternarrative that will speak to people who sometimes feel very isolated from society. We can never stand still on this. We have to keep up with some of the stuff that is happening multiple times in an hour, never mind in a day. Yes, I think that we can be very proud of what we are doing.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain how the recent banning of two Syrian Orthodox bishops from coming to the United Kingdom conforms to the Prevent strategy, while at the weekend it was reported that Syed Qadri is to be allowed to come into the United Kingdom? He is a radical Islamist hate preacher who has been banned from preaching in Pakistan. He spoke out in favour of those who assassinated Salmaan Taseer and is said to have been one of the influences on the murderer of the Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow. Why is he being permitted to speak at public venues throughout the United Kingdom?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I cannot speak about individual cases, but the point is that Syed Qadri and others like him—I am sorry but I have forgotten the second part of the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, why is he being allowed to come into the United Kingdom and to speak at public venues when we recently banned two Syrian Orthodox bishops from coming into the United Kingdom?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, when people speak in public it is important to ensure that what they say does not incite racial or terrorist hatred in this country. I cannot comment on the individual cases of the Syrian bishops.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, a group of Christian leaders in Luton in my diocese are working closely with people of other faiths on the Prevent strategy. I have to say that I hear a very different narrative from the grass roots which is profoundly worrying. There is growing discontent at the rollout of the Prevent strategy due to a number of things such as religious illiteracy and some very heavy-handed actions. Would the Minister be willing to come and meet a group of leaders to hear about these concerns? These are people who want to try to make this work so that we can think about how to get it back on course and improve the situation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly take the point made by the right reverend Prelate about religious illiteracy, which all sectors have to be very mindful of. I am happy to come and meet him and I pay tribute to the work of the Church on promoting integration in society.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, obviously we on this side also wish to express our shock and horror at the latest atrocities. As I understand it, in certain areas of the UK the number of far-right referrals now outnumbers cases involving Islamic extremism. Does this not suggest that the Prevent strategy has not been sufficiently focused on challenging far-right attitudes and that it has been caught napping by what is now happening?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that far-right cases are on the increase, but Prevent does not preclude tackling them. As he will know, because we debated this last week, we have for the first time proscribed a far-right organisation.
Policing and Crime Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsMonday 19th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 68KB) - (16 Dec 2016)
“(4) The list of offences in subsection (3) is to be read as if it also included the corresponding service offences and, for that purpose, the corresponding service offences are—(a) an offence under an enactment set out in subsection (4A) which is such an offence by virtue of any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3);(b) an offence under section 32 of 13 Chas. 2 c. 9 (1661) (An Act for the regulation and better government of the navy);(c) an offence under section 29 of 22 Geo. 2 c. 33 (1749) (An Act for amending and consolidating the laws relating to the navy);(d) an offence of sodomy mentioned in, and punishable under, section 38 of the Naval Discipline Act 1860, section 38 of the Naval Discipline Act 1861, section 41 of the Naval Discipline Act 1864 or section 45 of the Naval Discipline Act 1866.(4A) The enactments referred to in subsection (4)(a) are—(a) section 45 of the Naval Discipline Act 1866;(b) section 41 of the Army Act 1881;(c) section 41 of the Air Force Act 1917;(d) section 70 of the Army Act 1955;(e) section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955;(f) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957.”
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I shall not keep the House long with these amendments. Noble Lords will recall that on Report my noble friend Lord Lexden questioned why the list of service disciplinary offences in what is now Clause 166 did not include all historic enactments criminalising buggery in the Armed Forces. I would like to thank my noble friend for bringing this matter to the Government’s attention. Having examined it further, we agree that the list of naval offences should reach back to the Navy Act 1661. I should stress that the various enactments cited in Amendments 3 to 6 include offences which would still be covered by the criminal law today, notably bestiality. Accordingly, it is important to emphasise again that these posthumous pardons would be granted to a person convicted of an offence only where their actions would not be illegal under current law.
We are aware that that there may be parallel offences that applied to Army personnel which predate the Army Act 1881. In the time available since Report we have not been able to identify all the relevant statutes, but we are continuing to research this issue. If there are further offences to be added to the list, we will explore the best means of achieving this.
The other amendments in this group are minor technical and consequential ones. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained his amendment and the reasoning behind it. I am very happy to repeat the assurances that I laid out in my letter so that they now appear in Hansard.
I recognise the important principles behind the amendment and I agree that it is imperative that PCCs afford sufficient time during the consultation process to allow people properly to express their views and to provide sufficient material for them to form a proper opinion. However, it would not be appropriate to prescribe how PCCs should go about their consultation in the Bill; nor would it be appropriate for the Home Office to issue guidance on such matters. PCCs are locally accountable, and it would not be appropriate for Whitehall to dictate matters or fetter local flexibility.
I hope that the noble Lord would therefore agree with me that the points he has raised are properly a matter for guidance rather than for primary legislation—I think that was clear from what he said. As I set out on Report, the circumstances of each local consultation will be different, so we should not unduly fetter local flexibility to put in place proportionate arrangements that recognise the nature of each local business case. The amendment, while well intentioned, risks cutting across the local accountability of PCCs and risks Whitehall dictating matters that should rightly be left to local leaders.
In response to the noble Lord’s important concerns, I can, however, be very clear about the Government’s expectation that the PCC’s consultation will be undertaken in an appropriate manner and of an appropriate duration to allow local people to express their views and for the PCC to have taken them into account. There is plenty of case law relating to consultations of the kind that PCCs will be undertaking on their local business cases, and to discharge their formal statutory duty, PCCs will need to have regard to proper principles of consultation. We would expect PCCs to secure local legal advice prior to commencing a local consultation to ensure that their plans comply with the legal requirements set down by existing case law. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about consistency, I reiterate what I said privately: I think there is consistency.
To further strengthen the advice available to PCCs, we are also working with the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives to ensure that its practice guidance on fire governance business cases covers the points that the noble Lord has listed in his amendment today and his previous Amendments 12 and 14. This includes comprehensive guidance on the duty to consult, the manner in which consultation should be carried out, its duration, and what arrangements PCCs should make to publish their response to the consultation.
The Government expect the guidance to address the matters to be covered in the PCC’s business case. By its nature, this must set out the PCC’s assessment of why he or she considers that it would either be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or in the interests of public safety, for a Section 4A order to be made. If the PCC’s proposal is based on the first limb of this test, it would follow that the business case needs to address why other forms of collaboration, outside of a governance transfer, cannot deliver the same benefits in terms of improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The guidance is currently being drafted by a working group that includes representations from fire and rescue authorities and the Local Government Association. The Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives is aiming to publish the first version in January 2017, shortly after Royal Assent. The document will continue to be updated to reflect the lessons learned from the first PCCs to develop and consult on their proposals. As it will be sector guidance, it will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure but, as I have just explained, it will be in line with the Government’s expectations. I commit also to sharing a copy of the guidance once it is finalised.
I hope that in light of these further assurances the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her reply. I take it from what she has said that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations, which are that the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report and our Amendment 12 at Third Reading. Will the Minister confirm that once again?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise for being slightly distracted by the last thing the noble Lord said, so could he repeat it?
Lord Rosser
I understand that the Minister confirmed, as stated in the letter that she sent to me, that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations and included in those expectations are that the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report and now repeated in Amendment 12, which we are discussing, at Third Reading. If the Minister will confirm that that is the correct interpretation, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I did just say, but perhaps not very clearly, that it will be both in line with the Government’s expectations and with the points made in the noble Lord’s Amendments 12 and 14—now Amendment 12. I am happy to reissue that reassurance.
While I am on my feet I wonder whether the noble Lord will indulge me because there is one aspect in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on reasonableness that I did not address. PCCs would be expected to act reasonably when determining how to consult locally on their proposal and we would expect them to have regard to relevant case law and to practise the guidance issued by the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives. If there is a view that the PCC has acted unreasonably when determining what appropriate local arrangements should be, there would be an option to challenge the decision via the local consultation process or ultimately through legal challenge.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for repeating that reassurance. We have taken this matter as far as we can, and in light of her reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In paragraph 28ZA (recommendations by the Commission or a local policing body)(as inserted by this Act), in sub-paragraph (3)(b), after “submission” insert “or completion”.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In moving that the Bill do now pass, I shall not detain the House for long. I have felt the Bill to be a very constructive process, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as well as the genius of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. If I ever need representation, I know where to go, as long as I have a lot of money! I particularly thank the officials, because they are not just from the Home Office; there are officials on the Bill from the Department for Transport, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministries of Justice and Defence and the Department of Health. Last but not least, I thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm, without whom I could not have got through the Bill in such a cheerful manner. She has kept me upright sometimes late into the night and has worked so seamlessly with me. It has been an absolute joy. I wish her well. I know that she is not retiring—she is just taking life a bit more sensibly—but I shall desperately miss her by my side in the next Bill that I do.
Lord Rosser
I shall be very brief, but I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for the courteous and open way in which they have listened to and sought to address, within government policy constraints, the issues raised during the passage of the Bill. I seem to have received a deluge of letters, for which I am genuinely very grateful, but it rather tests the statement that somebody, somewhere is waiting for a letter—that may no longer be the case in this instance. Actually, the number of letters that we have received in the light of the debates that have taken place is a reflection that the issues have been raised, considered and responded to, and I am very grateful for that. I thank the members of the Bill team for their help. I also thank all my noble friends, especially my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and other Members of this House who have contributed to the debates. We too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, a very successful time, presumably on the Back Benches, from where I am sure she will continue to make her views known.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 December be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “severe”. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.
We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise it. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities. The group that we now propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is National Action. This is the 21st order under Section 3(3)(a) of that Act. This is the first time we have laid an order for a right-wing group. Proscribing this neo-Nazi group sends a strong message that we will not tolerate terrorist activity here, regardless of what motivates it.
As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. However, I can provide a brief summary of the group’s activities. National Action is a racist, neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct threatening street demonstrations and activities aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are aimed particularly at recruiting young people.
National Action’s ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent “race war”, which the group claims it will be an active part of. The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived “race traitors”. National Action has links to other extreme right-wing groups abroad, including in Europe. In May 2016, National Action members attended Buchenwald concentration camp, where they carried out Nazi salutes and posted images of this online.
The Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its forms. Alongside this and our Prevent work, we will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism.
This is a relatively small group which has only been in operation in the UK for a few years, but the impact of its activities has been felt in a number of UK communities. Since early 2016, the group has become more active and its activities and propaganda material have crossed the threshold from extremism into terrorism. National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes two tweets posted by the group in 2016 in connection with the murder of Jo Cox, which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act. One states, “Only 649 MPs to go”. Another contains a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption, “Don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain. Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”. The group has also disseminated an image which was doctored to condone and celebrate the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in which 49 people lost their lives, and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit.
There are people who may have become aware of these messages who could reasonably be expected to infer that these acts should be emulated; therefore, such propaganda amounts to the unlawful glorification of terrorism. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes a number of factors into account, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Proscription in effect outlaws a listed organisation and makes it unable to operate in the UK. Proscription can also support other disruptive activity, including prosecutions for other offences, and acts to support strong messaging to deter fundraising and recruitment. Additionally, assets of a proscribed group are liable to seizure as terrorist assets. The Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.
Proscription of this group will prevent its membership growing and help to prevent individuals who might be vulnerable to radicalisation, and possibly at risk of emulating the terrorist attacks that National Action glorifies, being drawn into the group’s extreme ideology. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Government are doing the right thing with this organisation and the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having set out in some detail why action is necessary. I have just one question. The noble Baroness rightly said that if an organisation of this kind is proscribed it is possible to seize its funds, but I take it that any organisation that knows it is going to be proscribed would takes its funds out of the jurisdiction, or otherwise distribute them so as to put them beyond reach. Has it been possible in this case, and would it normally be the Government’s practice, to freeze these funds in some way before the announcement of the proscription?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her careful explanation. I will not oppose the order, but this is a moment for reminding ourselves of the distinction between distasteful and, in a non-technical sense, offensive speech and the promotion of terrorism and other actions which are the criteria for proscription. In that connection, I would like to remind myself and the House of the importance of freedom of speech.
The Minister described some of the activities of National Action. I have read of its advocacy that, when it assumes power, those who promote liberal values, tolerance and multiculturalism will be “in the chambers”. She referred to photographs taken in what had been gas chambers. It has used the phrase “Hitler was right”; it is quite clear what it means by “the chambers”. When one of its members was jailed for a series of anti-Semitic tweets against the Member for Liverpool Wavertree, National Action led a campaign to have him freed. It clearly supports violence to achieve its political goals and has gone well beyond the bounds of free speech, into advocating violence and engaging in acts to “compel, coerce or undermine” the Government, which is engaging in terrorism.
However, that is a stronger definition of terrorism than in the current legislation. This definition was first advocated by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew in 2008, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. It was supported by David Anderson, the current reviewer, in 2014. National Action clearly falls within both the legal and recommended definitions of a terrorist organisation, but I wonder whether the Minister has anything in her brief about these recommendations. David Anderson also recommended that proscription should be for a limited period and subject to renewal. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether this order is time-limited or in some way subject to review.
As the Minister said, this is the first order against a right-wing organisation that advocates terrorism. I understand—I think these figures are from the National Police Chiefs’ Council—that the number of far-right referrals to the Prevent programme increased from 323 in 2014-15 to 561 the following year, which must be the most recent year for which we have figures. Does the Minister have any comments on that?
These Benches support freedom of speech and this proscription, and it has occurred to me, listening to this debate, that an organisation such as this infringes the right of free speech for the rest of us.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for their constructive comments. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the freezing of funds. As I outlined in my speech, it is entirely possible and we freeze assets, but we do not comment on whether individuals are being considered for an asset freeze. If that were the case, it would be an operational issue for the police and the Treasury.
On how easy it is to get round the order if an organisation is renamed or a new organisation is set up, if organisations change their name, they remain proscribed. We can, of course, also lay a name change order to clarify that they remain proscribed. We most certainly keep extreme right-wing groups under review, as we would with any other type of proscribed organisation, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is under consideration. I hope that answers noble Lords’ questions. I thank noble Lords for their comments.