Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

In my experience, this is normal for ping-pong and I am not going to be told what to do by the Greens.

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

We have heard from a number of Members. I certainly want us to adjourn briefly—I stress briefly—and then come back to decide these issues.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What time is the noble Lord suggesting might be brief? To be honest, we should be having a usual channels discussion but would half an hour suit the noble Lord?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I suggest that Report be adjourned until not before 8.24 pm.

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness has suggested that the House adjourn now. We normally have our dinner break around 7.30 pm, I accept that, but I wonder if it would be convenient for the House to continue with the next group, which is a voting group, and then all sides could release their Members.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we had Agreement with the usual channels. I know the Labour group often wants to break at 7.30 pm. I do not wish to have a dispute at the Dispatch Box but I ask that the noble Lord stick with the agreement that we had earlier and return no later than 8.25 pm.

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

My Lords, if the noble Baroness wants to have the dinner break now, that is fine, but I think we should move a Motion that allows that if the business finishes a bit earlier then the House could come back a bit earlier, rather than a rigid arrangement.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that sometimes the dinner break business finishes a bit earlier, and if it does then I am happy that Report resumes then. But the time given for a Statement is usually 40 minutes, and that is exactly what I am giving for the Statement today. That is in the Standing Orders.

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

I entirely accept the point that it is normally 40 minutes. However, if it finishes earlier then we should move a Motion that will allow us to come back a bit earlier, rather than saying “no earlier than”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I suggest that we have been arguing for two minutes. Can we just do the Statement in the normal way and leave 40 minutes for it?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I wish to raise how unhappy noble Lords are on these Benches and, I believe, other Benches, including some on the Government Benches. At the end of the first day on Report of the Illegal Migration Bill, after the Minister was repeatedly pressed on when the House will be given the child rights impact assessment, he said that the official position of the Government is that it

“will be provided in due course”.—[Official Report, 28/6/23; col. 791.]

That is totally unacceptable and not how the Government or any Minister of the Government should treat this House.

The assessment is an important document which your Lordships need to see to assist them in their scrutiny of the legislation. It is not right that my noble friends Baroness Lister, Lord Dubs and Lord Coaker, and noble Lords on other Benches, who have been asking for impact assessments throughout our debates on the Bill were given such a response. We must have the impact assessment next week before we conclude Report. No Member of this House should accept this totally unacceptable position from the Government.

As Opposition Chief Whip, I always try to be fair and reasonable. The Opposition, and indeed all Members, have an important role to play in scrutinising and revising legislation. The Government also have the right to get their business through; I fully accept that. But for these two essential aspects to be delivered properly there has to be co-operation, engagement and respect.

Let us be clear: this is a controversial Bill. It has gone through its First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and the first day of Report, yet we are still asking for the child rights impact assessment, and the best we can get is, “You’ll get it in due course”. That is plain wrong. I always thought that “in due course” meant getting something at the appropriate time, but the appropriate time was weeks ago.

I shadowed the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, when she was Local Government Minister and when she was Home Office Minister. She has steered many controversial pieces of legislation through this House with courtesy and respect, and always with proper engagement with the House. I have huge respect for the noble Baroness; I regard her as a friend. We work well together in our respective roles in this House—always in good spirits and in a friendly and co-operative manner. As she probably knows the Home Office better than anybody else in this House, I ask her to assist the House, get us the document we need and bring it to the House next week.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind words, which I reciprocate. I hear him, and my noble friend the Minister, Lord Murray of Blidworth, certainly heard the House last night. In the hours since the debate, he has been back to the Home Office to seek what the House requested. I can confirm that the child rights impact assessment will be forthcoming early next week and well before Report concludes, as the noble Lord requested.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am conscious of the time, the fact that we have now been debating amendments for many hours and that colleagues on all sides of the Committee are tired. I think we should wrap up the business for the day.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend the Minister needs to respond but, while he does so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and I could have a usual channels chat.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

1st reading
Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is a formal process for receiving a Bill.

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

Can I just endorse the comments from the Government Chief Whip? It is a formal process; let us get on with the business.

Metropolitan Police Service

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I sat here listening to the Statement that was read out by the noble Baroness. I know they are not her words, but I found some of the comments about the Mayor of London quite offensive. I could not believe it when my noble friend then said that the Statement had been shared with the Opposition in the other place and those bits had been left out. When Oppositions and Governments work together, common courtesies such as sharing Statements need to be respected. The fact that those comments were left out so that the Front-Bench spokesman did not see them before they were delivered at the Dispatch Box is totally out of order; doing things like that is not the way to operate. There is no reason for that other than making cheap political jibes. It is an awful way to behave. I assume that the Home Secretary had approved that; can the Minister confirm that she had approved the Statement before it was read out in the other place? If she did approve it, it is just awful for a member of the Cabinet to have done that. Let us also remind ourselves that this is the Home Secretary who was found guilty of breaching the Ministerial Code for bullying; we should remember that that is why the Government lost a previous ethics adviser. That is not the way to operate at all. These are serious matters that need serious commitment from the Government and from the Mayor of London to work to get things right, and behaviour like that is totally out of order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, on whether the Home Secretary approved it, I saw the “check against delivery” vision of it, so I cannot comment any further than that. However, when these things happen, instead of the back and forth that we saw a lot of in the Commons, with people blaming each other, I will take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that we need to work together to resolve these things. Every victim, incident and controversial issue that has happened is the rationale for this “Engage” process to have been triggered. In some ways we should be not glad that it has happened but pleased that the process is now in place to stop these sorts of things happening, as they have been all too frequently.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am more than happy to do that. In fact, I think it would be a very good idea to meet up, because the discussions have been positive and fruitful over the last period. So, yes, I am very happy to do that in support of my noble friend.

I welcome the support for the government amendment, as I have said. I think it makes a real, significant step forward. Let us keep it monitored, as my noble friend said.

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

I am genuinely very grateful to the Minister. I think this is a good example for all Members of the House that when you have an issue, you should just keep raising it, because this House can maybe act in ways that the other place sometimes cannot. Sometimes people get into their trenches there, but we can do it a bit differently here. Certainly, by raising issues persistently, and with the Minister listening and bringing people together, we can actually get things right. I think that is one of the great things about this House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I think we will call it the “Kennedy approach”, but then we have had the “Cashman approach” as well—and they have both worked. We have the bandwidth to look at things in a different way from the other place. On that note, I commend the amendment to the House.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. Amendment 319AA would limit the offence of locking on—on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the deputy commissioner has in fact welcomed this offence—to cases where serious disruption had been caused, thereby excluding from the ambit of the offence cases where the use of a lock-on has not caused serious disruption but where the conduct is capable of doing so. Removing this element of the offence would make it possible for those who engage in such behaviour to evade prosecution. This could happen if they were quickly removed by the police or if they removed themselves from the lock-on after having caused some disruption which did not meet the threshold of “serious”.

In a similar vein, it is necessary that the offence can be committed if a person locks on and was reckless as to whether it would cause serious disruption. Amendment 319AB would remove this and have the offence be committed only if there was intent to cause serious disruption. If this amendment were made, a person who is aware of the risk of causing serious disruption but unreasonably took that risk anyway would not be captured by the offence.

What matters here is the protester’s intention and/or the impact of their actions. It may simply be fortuitous that the action of locking on did not cause serious disruption, but, if that was the intent, we believe the offence should apply. Equally, if there was not an intention to cause serious disruption but it was a risk of which they were aware and they unreasonably took that risk, again we believe that such conduct should be covered by the new offence.

A few noble Lords talked about bikes, specifically people innocently going about their business with a bike lock. It is a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for carrying the equipment in question. For example, carrying a bike lock for the purposes of locking one’s bike to a designated space for bikes could be considered a reasonable excuse. The prosecution must also demonstrate that the person intended to use the item in the course of or in connection with the lock-on offence.

A couple of noble Lords asked whether this was a ban on protests. HMICFRS concluded that protest banning orders would not be compatible with human rights, but the report considered only orders that would outright ban an individual from protesting. The two are quite different. SDPOs grant the courts discretion to impose any prohibitions and requirements necessary to protect the public from protest-related offences, breaches of injunctions and serious disruption. Depending on the individual circumstances, this might mean that the court will not consider it necessary to stop individuals attending protests. Also, a court as a public authority must not act incompatibly with protesters’ Article 10 and Article 11 rights. This means that the court must decide whether making an SDPO is proportionate in an individual case.

Amendments 319AC, 319BC, 319DC and 319P seek to probe the maximum fine for the new offences created by the government amendments. What were level 5 fines, or a maximum of £5,000, were replaced in 2015 as a result of reforms introduced by the coalition Government through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. We think that an unlimited fine is appropriate in the case of these new offences; a level 1 or level 2 fine, as proposed by the noble Lord, would not, in our view, reflect the seriousness of the conduct in question. An unlimited maximum fine allows courts to determine the level of any fine on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the ability of the offender to pay.

Amendment 319BA probes what objects it will be a criminal offence to possess under the “in connection with” limb of the going equipped to lock-on offence. This could include items that supported the deployment of a lock-on but did not form a part of it—for example, tools to set up structures to be used in the course of a lock-on.

Amendment 319BB would limit the offence such that a person would only be guilty of going equipped to lock on if they are carrying the equipment to commit the lock-on offence themselves. This would mean that a group of protesters could each legally carry items to lock on for use by others in the group.

Amendment 319DA would limit the scope of the offence to where a person obstructs the setting out of lines for major transport works or actual construction or maintenance. We think that it is necessary to include acts that obstruct steps necessary for facilitating construction. This would include steps such as environmental surveys and the translocation of species. If protesters delay ecological surveys into nesting or hibernation season, construction works may be delayed by a period of a year, potentially adding millions to the cost of HS2.

Amendment 319DB seeks further to narrow the scope of the offence to omit activity where a person interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus necessary for the works. This amendment would enable protesters to interfere with works without committing the offence simply by interfering with equipment rather than the relevant works. It is necessary that this limb of the offence remains.

Finally, turning to the amendments on serious disruption prevention orders, one of the circumstances in which an order can be imposed is when at least two protest-related offences have been committed. Amendments 319L and 319M seek to raise the burden of proof for demonstrating that two offences were protest related from “on the balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”. We have had this debate before, including in the context of serious violence reduction orders, and it is our view that these are civil orders and that it is therefore entirely appropriate for the civil standard of proof to apply in the making of an order. It is already the case that the court must consider the SDPO necessary to prevent a person committing harmful protest-related acts. In the event of a prosecution for breach of an order, of course the prosecution would need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Amendment 319N removes the ability of the courts to impose an SDPO on application. We think it is essential that the courts should have the power to impose an order in such circumstances. It will allow SDPOs to be placed on those who are intent on causing unjustifiable disruption at a protest but who have not met the criteria for an SDPO on conviction. It is entirely right that, where there is sufficient evidence of a pattern of behaviour that an SDPO be imposed. The public should not have to risk unjustifiable disruption caused by an individual who the police knew was likely to cause such disruption simply because they did not have two prior protest-related convictions. This would mean that even if someone had two convictions, if the application was not made at the time of the second conviction, an application could not be made until they were convicted of a third protest-related offence. This approach is consistent with other risk-based civil orders that may be made in the absence of a conviction—for example, domestic abuse protection orders.

Amendments 319Q to 319U remove the ability for a court to renew an SDPO. Where there is strong evidence that that an individual would go on to cause serious disruption, it is appropriate that the facility exists for SDPOs to be renewed.

Very finally, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on the DPRRC report, we consider that the negative procedure for the SDPO’s statutory guidance to be appropriate, but we are studying the report and will respond soon.

The question of causing or contributing to felt like a bit of an exam question at the end of quite a long day. I have three Acts in which causing or contributing feature: the Water Act 2014, the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about whether these measures will be taken in the new year, the answer is yes.

I am obviously disappointed that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, have signified their objections to the amendments tabled today but, given that, I will not move them. However, the Committee should be in no doubt that we will retable them for Report and, if necessary, seek the opinion of the House. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 319A.

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

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I want to be absolutely clear about something. I am sure that the answer must be yes, but it would be good to hear it from her, as this is my first time speaking from the Dispatch Box on this Bill. On these SDPOs, I always thought that we operated on the basis that you were innocent until proven guilty in this country; we would all defend that right. These orders can be imposed and have an effect on people who are totally innocent of any crime whatever. Can she confirm that, as it is good to get it absolutely clear on the record? If that is the case, as I am sure it is, that is totally outrageous.

That and other reasons are exactly why we need to ensure that there is the maximum amount of time to enable this House and people outside it to discuss and debate these issues. For that reason, I think it is absolutely right that these amendments be withdrawn. Can these orders be imposed on totally innocent people who have committed no crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Does the noble Lord want a response on the nature of the orders?

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

I want confirmation that the Government intend to bring orders in which would be imposed on totally innocent people who have committed no crime.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

They are civil orders; they are preventive measures.

Black Dog Crisis Management Company

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I fully support my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in announcing that the inquiry would take place. The details of that will be announced in due course. Among the complexities was the number of agencies involved. Of course, things such as the potential for danger to life are critical in these situations—as, indeed, is learning the lessons of such novel incidents.

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

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to James Brokenshire. I had the privilege of meeting him a couple of times and he truly was a lovely man. Public duty was always at the heart of everything he did. We pass our condolences on to his wife and family.

Like my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, I had a look at the website of Black Dog. I thought that the “disaster response teambuilding” services and the “crisis leadership skills” would be ones for the Minister maybe to bring to the attention of her ministerial colleagues, in particular the Home Secretary.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Other than thank the noble Lord for those points, I do not think that I have anything to add.

Strategy for Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. We are not just conscious of it; there have been many debates in this House about anonymity. It is a difficult issue. We have to balance the lack of cases that come to court and conviction with the devastating effects that they can have on someone who is accused. We are committed, first and foremost, to arresting the steep decline in prosecutions for this offence and to improving the victims’ experience of the criminal justice system and access to justice. Any changes in this regard will, of course, uphold the principle of procedural fairness that is due to defendants in all criminal cases. There are existing offences designed to protect the administration of justice from false allegations, including the offence of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the most serious offences. But that does not undermine what the noble Baroness is saying, because for someone who is accused wrongly it can devastate their lives.

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

My Lords, following up on a point raised by my noble friend Lady Gale, what should women and girls who are harassed in broad daylight do in the absence of a specific sexual harassment law?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As the noble Lord will know, we are introducing the online pilot, which will be a repository for people to come forward if they are concerned about any element of violence against women and girls. The noble Lord is absolutely right that people can be harassed in broad daylight. Harassers are completely blatant in what they do, and there are existing offences which can include and address sexual harassment. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, we will be looking at where there might be gaps in the law and how a specific offence for public sexual harassment could address them.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am pleased to offer my full support for Amendment 66A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I would have happily signed the noble Lord’s amendment and apologise for not doing so. The noble Lord set out his case well—namely, that victims of domestic abuse must often endure lifelong risks from the perpetrator. The risk does not end when the relationship comes to an end and, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, told us, it is often when the relationship has ended that the risk significantly increases.

I can see, therefore, as I am sure other noble Lords can, that some victims will want to get as far away as possible from the perpetrator. However, the action of some local authorities in introducing a local connection rule, whether for access to refuge places or for the provision of housing, puts victims at risk. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to ensure that, in England, victims can seek the protection of moving away to another place when seeking new housing, and that no local rules can be brought to bear that frustrate that protection or that desire if that is what the victims wish to do. With this and the other amendments that we are debating about enabling victims to make a choice that affords them the protection that they feel comfortable living with—that is what this is about—the noble Lord is looking for a positive response from the Minister on how we can move this forward. I am confident that we shall get that.

I should declare my relevant interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association, as this is a housing matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I can provide that assurance. My noble friend Lord Randall explained that Amendment 66A seeks to amend the Housing Act 1996. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just explained, that Act deems victims of domestic abuse to have a local connection to the relevant local authority in England when seeking homelessness assistance under Part 7 of the Act.

I indicated in Committee, and will say again, that the existing legislation and guidance on this matter are clear. A victim of domestic abuse, or indeed anyone who is homeless or at risk of homelessness, can approach any local authority in England for assistance without a local connection. Once a local authority has accepted an application, it will then make inquiries around local connection, among other criteria. Ordinarily, if someone does not have a local connection in the area, but has a local connection elsewhere, the local authority may then refer that person to the other local authority. However, the legislation is clear that a housing authority cannot refer an applicant to another housing authority where they have a local connection if they, or anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with them, would be at risk of domestic abuse.

The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that a housing authority is under a positive duty to inquire whether the applicant would be at risk of actual or threatened domestic abuse and stipulates that authorities should not impose a high standard of proof of actual violence in the past when making its decision. If an applicant is at risk, they can present at another local authority. As such, protections are already in place for victims of domestic abuse which ensure that they are not housed in a local authority area where there is a risk of violence or abuse and ensure that local connection is not a barrier to accessing that homelessness assistance. The local connection test seeks to keep a degree of fairness, ensuring that those who live locally are prioritised and no one authority gets oversubscribed, which is an important point.

The statutory guidance already ensures that victims of domestic abuse should not be hindered by local connection criteria when accessing support services. As I indicated, the Government are committed to proactively engaging with local authorities to ensure that there is a thorough and proper understanding of the new duty and wider domestic abuse policy, including in relation to local connection.

I acknowledge that it is clear from engagement with the sector and points raised by noble Lords today that there is perhaps a misunderstanding that Amendment 66A would impact on social housing allocations. Social housing falls under a different part of the Housing Act 1996 so, regrettably, the amendment before us would not meet my noble friend’s aim.

With regard to social housing legislation, since 2012 local authorities have had the power to decide who qualifies for social housing in their area, including through the use of a local connection test. However, statutory guidance published in 2013 advises local authorities to consider making appropriate exceptions, including for people moving into an area to escape violence. Guidance issued in 2018 goes further and strongly encourages all local authorities not to apply a local connection test to victims of domestic abuse in refuges or other safe temporary accommodation. With those words, I hope I have been able to satisfy my noble friend and, consequently, that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am conscious of the time, so the House does not need 15 minutes from me on why we should support these amendments. I will make a few quick points to enable the Minister to respond fully to the debate.

I support both amendments. We have heard some excellent speeches this evening. I hope the Minister can give a detailed response to my noble friend Lady Armstrong. She has amended her amendment to take on board the comments made by the Minister in Committee.

I hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, may divide the House on Amendment 44 when we reach it. I can offer the support of these Benches if she decides to do so. This may focus the minds of some noble Lords in this debate. I shall leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the parting shot. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and my noble friend Lady Helic for raising the issue of training for front-line professionals in relation to domestic abuse. Quality training is important to equip practitioners with the knowledge and skills they need to protect and support victims of domestic abuse, including children, in an appropriate manner.

We can also agree on another aspect of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt articulated, professionals need to have the skills and confidence to ask the right questions about domestic abuse, and then take the right course of action. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it has served to further highlight the importance of professionals across a wide range of disciplines recognising the signs of domestic abuse and responding accordingly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talked about relationship and sex education in schools. Healthy relationships in this area are more important than ever.

In January, we launched “Ask for ANI”, the code word scheme that is now in operation across thousands of pharmacies. The scheme provides a clear process to follow. Working closely with the sector, we have developed bespoke training and guidance to support it to deliver this additional assistance. We have ensured that victims have a means to access potentially life-changing support, and have seen more than 45 uses of the scheme already. This is excellent news.

Those working in vaccination centres are also being provided with bespoke training to ensure that they pick up any signs of domestic abuse and can respond to disclosures should they be made in such safe spaces. I am sure we can all agree that the response and approach to identifying domestic abuse in a pharmacy and in a vaccination centre is very different from how one might respond in a school or a job centre. That is why reporting protocols and training are best developed and delivered by the appropriate responsible agency in each sector. Therein lies the expertise, so we should not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. The training needs to be tailored to the circumstances of each professional group and will, therefore, take many different forms.

While the domestic abuse commissioner and her office may support organisations in the development of their training, and may deliver some training itself—as Clause 7(2)(d) envisages—it is not appropriate, or indeed realistic, to expect the commissioner to be specifying training or reporting standards for the diverse range of public authorities specified in Clause 15.

Refugees: Napier Barracks

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have never been to Napier barracks but, in the past, I have seen accommodation we have provided to our servicepeople in other parts of the United Kingdom. In many cases, it is not of a very high standard, which is very disappointing. Can the noble Baroness justify to the House how we can be sure that this is good-quality accommodation? Do we not have here a public health disaster made in the Home Office?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can say to the noble Lord that, first, we are working very closely with public health authorities. Secondly, on the various aspects by which you might judge how people are living, there is drinking water, including bottled water, and three meals a day, two of them hot. I have gone through the healthcare provisions, and legal advice is also available. There is wi-fi on site, and everyone has a phone.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

I may have misheard the Minister, but did not she say that one of her reasons for not accepting any of the amendments was that it would be restrictive to place these things in the Bill? You can perhaps argue that Amendment 164 is a bit more prescriptive, but the other two amendments, other than setting a time limit for a report, set no restrictions at all. They would just steer the Government to get on with the matter in good time. Beyond that, I do not see that they are restrictive at all.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The point I was trying to make—and I hope the noble Lord will accept it—is that we do not need to put it in the Bill, because you are always restricted by primary legislation. But I voiced my intention that the Government want to do this.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

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

I think the Minister’s answer will again be yes, as she clarified this issue in her last remarks. Clause 22, on these other matters, says

“a senior police officer must, among other things, consider”,

and then lists four issues that they must consider. Among those “other things” is of course someone’s previous record. I ask her to clarify that further.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think it is yes to everything. The whole context has to be taken into account when issuing both a DAPN and a DAPO.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I am happy to give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I have great respect for the noble Baroness, but, again, have no expertise in this area. Of course, prevention is absolutely the key, and the point the noble Baroness made about the importance of ensuring that we take effective action to prevent children becoming abusers in the future is very important. You have to break this cycle, and I very much agree with the noble Baroness on that point.

I also think we have to be careful here that we are offering the right interventions at the right time. Professionals who are going to engage with partners and couples also need to be able to spot whether something is an area of conflict, but is not domestic abuse, or, equally, whether a situation is domestic abuse and actually needs a different intervention—they need to have the skills to understand that, and understand the difference. We would never want a situation where somebody remains in a relationship because they have had the wrong intervention. This is a very complicated area. We need professionals to provide the proper advice at the right time to ensure that if you can work to do that, fine, but equally there are times when people need to get out of a dangerous relationship. We need to ensure that professionals are able to spot that, and that you are building that knowledge and expertise into all the interventions that people can engage with.

On that basis, I am happy to support the amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling these amendments. I am pleased to see her looking so very much better. I hope that she is indeed feeling better, although she still has a bit of a cough. Her experience has been praised across the House, and I know how much she contributes to the debates in which she takes part. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, she brought into focus the real danger of the cycle of abuse and the importance of breaking it. As the noble Lord said, what we need here is the right interventions at the right time. There is strong evidence that conflict between parents, whether together or separated, can have significant impacts on children’s mental health and on long-term life chances. We can all agree on that.

We also highly value marriage, but must acknowledge that, for many reasons, such an arrangement will not suit everyone. Marriages have their difficulties; some couples do experience conflict and may decide that it is best for those involved to end their marriage. I recognise too the particular impact that this has on children and young people. That is not, of course, to negate the importance of couples’ counselling and access to psychological therapy services. They should not be underestimated and, in many cases, they lead to reconciliation of relationships, with steps to rebuild and repair. As the noble Baroness outlined, their value is immeasurable whatever the outcome of the relationship.

On mental health services, we are absolutely committed to our ambitions in the NHS long-term plan to expand and transform mental health services in England and to invest an additional £2.3 billion a year in them by 2023-24. Under the NHS long-term plan there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, ensuring that an additional 380,000 adults can access psychological therapies by 2023-24. It also commits to providing access to such therapies for specific groups, including expanding access to evidence-based psychological therapies within special perinatal mental health services, and parent, infant, couple, co-parenting and family interventions.

I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendments 27 and 41 relate to the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. The noble Baroness will know that Nicole Jacobs has undertaken significant action already as designate commissioner, including raising awareness of domestic abuse. She will also be responsible for monitoring and overseeing delivery of services to ensure that they are as effective, evidence-based and safe as they can be, as well as publishing information about the range of provision that currently exists for victims and survivors.

The commissioner’s general functions include the provision of support for people affected by domestic abuse. Within that, Clause 7 already provides that the commissioner may assess, monitor and publish information about the provision of services to people affected by domestic abuse. That might include the provision of relationship counselling and psychological therapy. I assure the noble Baroness that the substance of Amendment 27 is already captured by the remit of the commission as set out in Clause 7.

The Committee has heard a combination of views about ensuring the commissioner’s independence and a number of views on what she should be tasked with. The commissioner has a challenging role and will undoubtedly face many demands on her—many of them from your Lordships’ House. Respecting the independence of her office, we should leave it her to determine her priorities, as set out in her strategic plan, informed by the views of her advisory board. If we start writing into the Bill particular issues that the commissioner should address, we risk creating an unhelpful hierarchy of priorities which will constrain her freedom of action. Specifying in the legislation what should and should not feature in her strategic plan would restrict and hinder the very independence that the role requires.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 53, proposed by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill. Every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has fully supported my noble friend’s amendment. The new clause would place a duty on all public authorities to provide training for their staff so that, when they engage with members of the public, they can spot the signs of abuse and can then ask the proper questions and offer appropriate help. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said, this is probably the most important amendment we have discussed today and one of the most important we have debated during consideration on this important and very good Bill.

People engage with public authorities through a range of services, such as local councils, the DWP and GPs. In some parts of the public sector, particularly the health service, people do ask such questions when they have somebody in front of them. As some noble Lords have said, although there may be training, it is very patchy and inconsistent. We are failing many victims. We want to be sure that we will have dealt with this problem by the time the Bill becomes law. When someone engages with the state, there must be people who can see the signs, understand the signals, ask the right questions and take appropriate action. Everyone must play their part in protecting the victims.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made reference to the police. There are some very good examples of excellent work that the police have done. I remember my visit to the domestic abuse unit at Greenwich, where really good work was taking place, in collaboration with the local authority, Greenwich Council. There was one case where officers had attended an incident and were suspicious about what was going on. They kept going back because they knew. Finally, they engaged with the person, got what they needed, got the person out and protected her. That understanding of the problem and engagement does not happen everywhere. We want every police force, across the whole of the United Kingdom, to follow that good example. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, the officers who get called to a disturbance in the early hours of the morning are often the first people knocking on the door, so it is important that the police service in particular can deal with this.

My noble friend Lady Crawley made the point that having trained inquirers who know what to ask and what to do is so important in making sure that we make the difference. I also took on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the importance of training to recognise the special needs of the BAME community when dealing with issues of domestic abuse.

So I fully support the amendment and am hopeful of a positive response from the noble Baroness. I look forward to getting a resolution of this issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for tabling this amendment. The Government are in full agreement with its aims; we too want professionals to have the skills and confidence to ask the right questions about domestic abuse and take the appropriate action. I will not be making arguments about overburdening them, but rather suggesting how we think it might be achieved.

We absolutely want to embed understanding of domestic abuse in all agencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, what is the point if agencies do not know how to respond and cannot spot the signs? We want to ensure that there is strong recognition, from senior leadership through to front-line staff, of the importance of tackling domestic abuse. We want staff to ask about domestic abuse, because it is integral to their role and driven by professional curiosity. One of our concerns about introducing a statutory duty, to which noble Lords have alluded, is that it risks undermining professional judgment, and we do not want these sensitive and complex conversations to turn into some sort of tick-box exercise.

The Government are committed to taking wide-ranging action to improve understanding of domestic abuse across statutory agencies through guidance, targeted resources and training for responding agencies such as the police, social workers, healthcare professionals and universal credit work coaches. Work is already under way to strengthen the response from key agencies. In the health sector, front-line staff must undertake mandatory safeguarding training, which includes a focus on domestic abuse. The intercollegiate documents for child and adult safeguarding set out the core skills, competencies and knowledge expected for healthcare staff to be covered in the safeguarding training, and the level of training expected depending on their roles.

NHS England and NHS Improvement are strengthening safeguarding practice in local health systems through the updated NHS safeguarding accountability and assurance framework, and a new safeguarding commissioning assurance toolkit. Schedule 32 to the NHS standard contract sets out the service conditions for safeguarding, which include that the provider must implement comprehensive programmes of safeguarding training for all relevant staff and must have regard to the intercollegiate guidance on safeguarding training.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will not move Amendment 26. Given the strength of the House on Amendment 24, I think it is probably best to go away and, as discussed earlier, have some more discussions on both the government amendment and Amendment 24.

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

I thank the noble Baroness and the Government very much for that. I am sure we can get an agreement and all come together. Thank you so much.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I find myself agreeing with a lot of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater.

I absolutely recognise the concerns of Members about the range of organisations listed in the Bill. It is right that we probe, question and justify to ourselves as a House which organisations are listed here—as we have heard, that is now a reduced number—but it is also important that, as this Bill passes through the House, we empower a number of organisations to have the ability, in limited circumstances, to employ a covert human intelligence source.

If you look at the organisations here and think about the potential crimes that could be under their remit—HM Revenue & Customs in terms of tax fraud, the Food Standards Agency in terms of passing off out-of-date meat, the Environment Agency in terms of discharging all sorts of stuff into our rivers or the Competition and Markets Authority in terms of many activities which are illegal and very detrimental to our country—it is right that we have this range.

It is fair to say that some organisations listed here would potentially use the power much more than others. That is fair. I am clear that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has some oversight here, but it would be useful if the noble Baroness could be clear in responding that an organisation that used this power very infrequently would have the ability to go to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for advice and guidance, and maybe also to other agencies that are more used to using this power.

I absolutely see the point that we need to have organisations in certain areas empowered to do this work. These are potentially very dangerous situations. This is about keeping our country safe and protected in these difficult times. Although I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords in the amendments in this group, we on these Benches would not support any votes on them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I found the contribution from my noble friend Lord King very compelling. I hope that all noble Lords have received and read the business cases for the wider public authorities that I sent to all Peers last week. On the basis of those, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the requirement that these public authorities have for the use of this power. I can again offer reassurance that they will be low users of the power but that it nevertheless remains an important tactic in detecting and preventing crimes that have a significant impact on the lives of the public.

Regarding why the police cannot just authorise for these wider public authorities, the police have a range of priorities and we have given various organisations specific law enforcement responsibilities. That is why these public authorities have their own investigative functions, and they therefore need the tools to fulfil those functions.

If noble Lords support Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, as the Government will, IPCO will have close to real-time oversight of every single criminal conduct authorisation granted by each public authority. This will be another important safeguard to ensure that the power is being used properly and appropriately. IPCO will almost definitely flag where this is not the case, or if there are training requirements.

I can confirm that my noble friend Lord King is absolutely right: there were originally 34 authorities. There are now 14, so, far from expanding that list, we are contracting it. In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I can confirm that the IPC will consider the authorisation of wider public authorities in his annual report, which will be public.

I would like to give a very topical example of how this power might be used by one of our wider public authorities, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which comes under the umbrella of the Department of Health and Social Care in the Bill. The MHRA has responsibility for protecting public health through the regulation of medicinal products, medical devices and blood and blood products in the UK. These products are not ordinary consumer goods and have the ability to cure, prevent and diagnose disease and enhance life. However, they can also cause serious harm. In particular, prescription medicines are, by their very nature, potent and are prescribed to patients by a healthcare professional based on clinical judgment and a patient’s history.

In the UK, strict legal controls govern these products and breaches of these regulations are criminal. Crime involving medicines and medical devices is increasing; they are profitable commodities and unscrupulous individuals and organised crime gangs, which put financial gain before human health, face less risk and less severe penalties compared to trading in, for example, narcotic drugs. The MHRA relies on powers under RIPA, including the power to authorise the use and conduct of CHIS, to investigate and disrupt criminal activity in this area.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Amendment 22, moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti with the support of my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Hendy, seeks to limit the use of criminal conduct authorisations to serious crime—and by that they mean indictable offences that must be tried in Crown Court before a judge and jury.

The amendment seeks to remove subsection (5)(c) in respect of economic well-being in the United Kingdom. It would be helpful if, in her response, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, were to set out examples of what this provision is seeking to do and what it is not seeking to do. There are concerns about this, as I am sure the noble Baroness has heard, from around the House, during discussion of this group.

Can the Minister also explain why the list of necessary grounds given in this Bill—as listed in subsection (5)(5)—is slightly different from those listed in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act? In that Act, the reasons listed are that the activity threatens national security, threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in a way relevant to the interests of national security, or is an act of serious crime. Why not use the same words? Not to do so is surely a recipe for confusion when you are dealing with such serious matters. We want to see clarity from the Government; clarity about what they intend to bring into law is very important. Why is a form of words that was acceptable to the Government two years ago, when they put the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act on the statute book, changed in this Bill? Surely there is a risk of some overlap between these two pieces of legislation. Will the noble Baroness clarify this when she responds to the debate?

Amendments 23 and 26, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, add the word “serious” in order to limit a criminal conduct authorisation to issues of serious crime. I have listened carefully to the arguments from the noble Lord and have some sympathy with them, so I will be interested to hear from the Minister the case for why these amendments are not necessary. The noble Lord referred to the number of times we have talked about serious crime over the years, and the various definitions of “serious”. That is a fair point and it needs to be answered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the question as to why preventing and detecting crime would not be enough, on their own, as reasons for the powers in the Bill to be deployed. We also need reassurance about what will not happen when powers are given by Parliament, so it is important for the Minister to set out what will not be impacted.

Noble Lords may not like it, but the right to withhold one’s labour and to strike is a hard-won right that we should all defend. We need guarantees that the powers in the Bill would never be used to undermine lawful, legal trade union activity in respect of strike action or campaigning activity. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti raised the important point regarding trade unions, as did my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick and many others. We have to get the balance right; lawful activity must not be undermined by the state with the use of undercover activities.

We have heard about the policing inquiry. Some terrible things have happened that I am sure we all regret, which have undermined legitimate activity. It must never happen again. Those are the questions the noble Baroness needs to reassure the House on: how will this Bill ensure that never ever happens again?

I am a proud trade unionist. I was a member of USDAW for 12 years when I first left school and I have been a member of the GMB for the last 30 years. I never rose very high in the GMB ranks; I got as fair as the chair of the Labour Party senior staff sub-branch for a couple of years. I spent probably more time arguing with the rest of the staff in the Labour Party about where we wanted to get to. But I certainly think that the unions are very important. For example, USDAW—a union I am very close to—is a great trade union with great campaigns that I always support. It is important that we support the work that unions such as USDAW do.

At this point, I pay tribute to my old friend John Spellar. John was first elected to public office 50 years ago today, in a St Mary Cray by-election on 3 December 1970. John has served as a councillor, trade unionist, trade union official, MP and Minister. John would have nothing to do with any extremism of any sense whatever; anyone who knows him would know that. He has also run a news service for many in the Labour Party called “Spellar News”. We get it two or three times a day: early bird, evening round-up and news flashes. John is actually retiring the news service today, which I am very sad about. He has done great work as a trade unionist and is a great example to many of us in the Labour Party.

I was also sorry to learn that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has been arrested on demonstrations. I have been on a few demonstrations in my time as well. I have avoided being arrested, but I must admit that I have also been demonstrated against. When I was a councillor, many times things that we did on the council provoked some annoyance. I remember once that I put up the fees of the traders in East Street Market and drew their wrath for a number of weeks. There were lots of unpleasant signs about me.

What is important here is that, if you are a trade unionist or a campaigner, nothing in the Bill must ever undermine legitimate work. It is really important for the Government, and for the noble Baroness, to reassure the House and Parliament that nothing legitimate will ever be undermined when this goes on the statute book, and that actually it will be supported. I think she can see from the comments of people around the House today that we are not convinced that is the case. She needs to reassure us now in responding to the debate.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to anyone who has been in politics—and indeed the trade union movement—for 50 years. I have heard of John Spellar in dispatches, but unfortunately not the person that the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, referenced.

Turning to public authorities, they have different functions, the ultimate outcome of which is to keep the public safe from harm in a variety of ways. It is very important that they can lawfully deploy CHIS to fulfil those responsibilities. These amendments seek to restrict the statutory purposes available to public authorities under the Bill.

The structure of new Section 29B closely resembles that of Section 29, which authorises the use and conduct of CHIS, as there is a high degree of interrelationship between the two provisions. That is why a Section 29 authorisation is required to be in place before a Section 29B authorisation can be granted. The statutory purposes that will be available for a criminal conduct authorisation are linked to those available for a use and conduct authorisation. It is not operationally workable to have different grounds for authorisation between the provisions. For example, we would want to avoid a situation where a CHIS’s use and conduct has been deemed necessary for the prevention of crime, but the linked criminal conduct authorisation for the same CHIS and the same activity may be only on the basis of preventing a serious crime, as my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater pointed out.

My noble friend also pointed out the words of my right honourable friend James Brokenshire about the sheer amount of activity that has been done under covert means—it led to 3,500 arrests and the recovery of more than 400 firearms, 100 other types of weapons, 400 kilograms of class A drugs and £2.5 million-worth of cash. But first and foremost, and most importantly, is the fact that it safeguarded hundreds of victims from child sexual abuse and other heinous crimes.

To restrict the prevention of “crime” to “serious crime”, as Amendments 22, 23 and 31 propose, would mean that public authorities would be less able to investigate crime that, while not amounting at the time to serious crime, actually has a damaging impact on the lives of its victims—so the outcome is serious, to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. An example of this would be food crime: the extension of meat durability dates, leading to out-of-date food being consumed, is damaging and can be very dangerous to public health.

Of course, the necessity and proportionality requirements mean that an authorisation must be proportionate to the activity it seeks to prevent. This provides an important safeguard against authorisations of serious criminality being granted to prevent less serious, but equally important, crime. However, it is surely right that public authorities have access to the most effective tools to ensure justice for victims of these crimes and to prevent their occurrence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to some of the examples that we have heard in this Chamber of sexual relationships between undercover police and women, and some of the actually quite devastating consequences of that. I think I have said before in this Chamber that that was not lawful, is not lawful and would never be lawful.

In response to the1 amendments seeking to remove economic well-being, this is one of the established statutory purposes for which covert investigatory powers may be deployed by public authorities. It recognises that threats to the economic well-being of the UK could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect. It might, for example, include the possibility of a hostile cyberattack against our critical national infrastructure, our financial institutions or, indeed, the Government. It is important that law enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies can deploy the full CHIS functionality against such threats where it is necessary and proportionate.

Similarly, preventing disorder is an important and legitimate law enforcement function. Where illegal activity takes place, public authorities listed in the Bill have a responsibility to take action as is necessary and proportionate. An example of this could be managing hostile football crowds, which does not involve lawful protest but causes harm to the public.

To be clear to noble Lords concerned that either economic well-being or preventing disorder could be used to target legitimate protest or the work of the trade unions, an authorisation can be granted only if it is proportionate to the harm or criminality that it seeks to prevent. Therefore, this would not include—to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—“legitimate and lawful activity”. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bryan of Partick, also gave examples of activity by political groups or trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me about the difference between the wording in this Bill and the CT Act. It goes wider, basically, and it is consistent with RIPA.

With those words, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 27 is tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am not going to speak for long because we discussed some of these issues in the previous group. We have mentioned numbers in the various pieces of legislation and I have made the point about consistency. I know that when I mentioned the counter-terrorism Act, the noble Baroness was spot on and I will look at what she said in the earlier debate. However, we need to be sure that we have consistency in the various bits of legislation that we are talking about today. That is very important.

A number of colleagues have talked about the need to get the balance right here. The concerns that have been raised by Members of the House show that it is one thing when you are dealing with terrorists from another state or people who for various reasons are looking to undermine the economic well-being of the country, but on the other side of that are quite lawful campaigners. We might not like them and we might think that what they are doing is wrong or irritating, but they are acting in a perfectly lawful way. That is the area in which we need reassurance and it is what this debate comes down to. People have the right to protest, to be annoying and irritating, as long as they do it lawfully. We have to be sure that we get this right and that is what we are worried about.

Equally, I turn to the whole question of trade unionists, who have been mentioned many times. Trade unionists have the right to campaign and to know that they can do so without having agents put in to undermine their activities. You could argue that others might undermine their activities, but they do not need people in their own ranks who are sent in to do that.

As many noble Lords have mentioned, in the past undercover officers have been sleeping with campaigners. That is totally out of order. I am sure that it will be said that that will never happen again, but people need to be reassured that it is, as I say, totally out of order. While the Government are saying that this will never happen again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has challenged a number of police commissioners—three of them are now Members of this House—and has never had an answer; that is also a concern. These things are totally wrong.

The Minister has a job here to find a way of reassuring the Committee that these things will not happen again, but how can we be sure about that? That is the issue that we have to deal with, because of course we thought that they could not have happened before, but clearly they did and we have only found out about them years afterwards. We want legislation that is right and proper so that people are protected, but, equally, legitimate campaigners have to be protected as well so that they are not abused and wrong things done to them. This, I think, is the crux of the issues we are debating today and I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will start with the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Chakrabarti, and the point about listening to what each other is saying. I have never tried to skirt around the issue of the disgusting behaviour of some 30 years ago. I do not know whether police officers were not told that it was illegal and the inquiry is clearly establishing the ins and outs of that. But it was not acceptable and it was never lawful, and it cannot be authorised under this Bill. I hope that I have made that very clear. I do not dismiss what those women went through—including, indeed, what the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, went through—and I hope that the inquiry will vindicate an awful lot of the people who suffered, complained and were simply ignored in the past. The inquiry will get to the bottom of something that was never lawful in the first place. I digress, but I must add that operational partners are very clear that that sort of behaviour could not be authorised under this Bill.

I shall move on to the substance of Amendment 27. I will not repeat the points I made in response to the last set of amendments, but I will emphasise that economic well-being is one of the established statutory purposes for which covert human investigatory powers may be deployed by public authorities. We recognise that threats to the economic well-being of the UK could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect. That might include, for example, the possibility of a hostile cyberattack against our critical infrastructure, as I said earlier, attacks on financial institutions or on the Government themselves. I gave examples in my previous speech of the victims of CSA, cash and drugs activity, so they may not be solely related to issues of national security.

We have agencies such as HMRC, the NCA and the Serious Fraud Office whose mandate includes mitigating broader threats to the UK’s economic well-being. These threats are real, emerging and go beyond the remit of national security. We cannot tie our hands in response to such threats by limiting the statutory purposes available to tackle these issues. Of course, there are also examples of where economic well-being is not restricted to national security, as set out in other parts of the Investigatory Powers Act and the Security Service Act.

I hope that I have given a full explanation of why Amendment 27 should be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, my contribution on this amendment will be fairly short. I hear the point that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti makes and I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this issue is not mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, I am not quite clear whether the amendment is necessary. It would help us if, when the Minister responds, she could say something about the detail of the authorisations in a CCA.

Behind all the amendments today are concerns and worries about what may or may not have happened in the past. People want reassurance going forward, but they are not seeing it. I see that theme across all our discussions today. At some point, the Government will probably have to go a bit further to provide that reassurance, although I do not know how they will do that.

All these issues have been raised because of concerns that people have had in the past. As my noble friend said, we do not know whether we can stop this in the future, but I hope that the Minister can go a bit further. I cannot see any particular issue but, if I am right, the reason behind an authorisation would have to be recorded and shared with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That is the issue on which we need reassurance, as we move forward and give people new powers.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank noble Lords. I hope to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about why we do not need this amendment.

I have already stressed the requirement for all CHIS authorisations to be given in line with the Human Rights Act. Article 6 of the ECHR protects the right to a fair trial. The article restates a fundamental principle of English law and, I understand, Scottish law: that a court has a duty to ensure a fair trial. The use of an agent provocateur could be seen as affecting the fairness of a trial, and rightly so. A court already has the requisite power in law—under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—to consider and exclude such evidence. The relevant entrapment principles are set out in the leading House of Lords case of Loosely from 2001, which also opines on the convergence of English law in this area with our Article 6 commitments. I hope that that provides reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this is one of those debates where you can stand up and quite honestly say you agree with every single word that has been said from across the House. I am sure the noble Baroness understands that this presents particular problem for the Government, because I am sure that, in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who made an excellent speech, many other members of the Government’s own party will agree with all the points that have been raised here today.

This group of amendments brings the House back to an issue that was first raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel on a statutory instrument, to which the noble Baroness responded. I remember sitting in a much more packed House, and there was lots of concern around the House—“What is this?” People were quite shocked to learn that children were being used in such a way, and that shock and concern has continued, which is why we have come here today.

Everyone around the House is very worried. That is certainly why I signed Amendment 60, which was so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. Other noble Lords have spoken, and all these amendments are excellent, but I hope that we can hone this down to one. I particularly like Amendment 60, but I think we can see the concern expressed by the House, and we need to deal with this. Our Amendment 60 does not rule out child CHIS completely, but it certainly restricts them. I accept that in very limited circumstances, you might have to use a child, but it must be a very limited, rare occasion.

I am confident that the House will pass an amendment on this issue. Ideally and hopefully, it would be a government amendment, but I am confident that the House will pass an amendment by a large majority on this issue, which is about children. As you have heard, people under 18 can be quite streetwise—certainly, children think they are quite streetwise, although I do not know if they are; they are not quite as streetwise as they think they are. It is about that ability to give informed consent.

We are asking these children to take part in, be involved in and inform and report back on some very dangerous situations. This can be terrorism, drug dealing, sexual abuse or paedophilia: all sorts of really appalling, terrible things. We have to ask ourselves the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: how is that individual child protected? What would be said if a child CHIS is authorised and that child dies? That would be appalling—what would we say then? I think we have to take note of and be concerned about that, as well as the comments of the Children’s Commissioner in respect of using child CHIS.

Of course, sometimes—we have had this before—the child CHIS can be asked to pass information back to their handler, who can be a member of their own family. There are often situations when they are involved in a crime family: it could be their own father or mother. It is not always the case that the child is in care and hanging around the streets before getting involved; sometimes, it can be members of their own family, who can be very dangerous people. We are putting people in very difficult situations, and we must be even more careful about the individual child in those situations. These children have rights, and we need to ensure that, as the state, we protect them even more. As I said, if you are under 18, you are legally still a child and deserve protection from the state.

The right reverend Prelate made the point again about children, and I fully support his comments, as I do the points about mental capacity made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which are very important. I also support the point of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that, sometimes, you can have quite a streetwise child and, equally, an older adult who is not that streetwise, so there is an issue there as well. These are things that we need to consider.

I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell the House that she fully understands the situation—and I know she is concerned about this. I hope that she will work with the House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, says, can see the concern and genuine desire to agree something. I hope that she will welcome noble Lords from around the House and that we will come back with an amendment that, hopefully, we can all sign up to on Report, allowing very limited circumstances where a child may need to be used—very limited. Equally, I want to see much more protection for people. I hope that, when the noble Baroness responds, she will be able to give the House that information.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and absolutely confirm that I fully understand what all noble Lords have been talking about this evening. Of course, I will continue to work with the House, as I have done to date, in discussing what is, for me, the most difficult part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me: would I like to be a CHIS? No: I would be utterly terrified. Could I see my children being deployed in such activity? It would be incredibly difficult for me.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of those children, who, as every noble Lord has said, are fairly vulnerable people in the sense that they might have been involved in, or their home life might be the site of, criminal activity. This is a very difficult area indeed. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—and any noble Lords who are behind me—who have taken the time to come and speak to me about this aspect of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, put to me the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about sessions in private. We are thinking about the best way to ensure that people have some of the information they need, although noble Lords will understand that some of that is sensitive to the point that it cannot be given out. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that I have taken the time to have a one-to-one session with any noble Lord who requested it, on any aspect of the Bill. That said, these issues are very difficult, and I totally understand the concerns that have been raised. Nobody likes to think of children or young people being involved in these horrible areas.

Noble Lords may recall that the issue of juvenile CHIS, including whether they should be authorised at all, was discussed extensively in Parliament in 2018. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked me why there was no child impact assessment of the Bill. As a result of concerns being raised about the use of juvenile CHIS, the IPC himself launched a review of all public authorities that have the power to authorise CHIS, to ensure that there was a comprehensive record of how often these powers were used in relation to juveniles. The conclusions of the review were reported in March 2019 to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I have discussed them before, including the numbers, on the Floor of this House.

On the basis of these detailed reviews, the IPC was satisfied that those who grant such authorisations do so only after very careful consideration of the inherent risks, and that concerns around the safeguarding of children and the public authority’s duty of care to the child are key considerations in the authorisation process. He also noted that public authorities are reticent to authorise juveniles as CHIS unless the criminality and the risk of harm to individuals and communities that the authorisation is seeking to prevent is of a high order and cannot be resolved in less intrusive ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, put that challenge to me.

The IPC also highlighted that juvenile CHIS are not tasked to participate in criminality that they are not already involved in and that becoming a CHIS can, potentially, offer a way to extricate themselves from such harm. The decisions to authorise were only made where this is the best option for breaking the cycle of crime and the danger for the individual, much as that might sound contradictory.

As well as the IPC investigation, the High Court considered the issue of juvenile CHIS last year. Mr Justice Supperstone set out his view that it was clear that the principal focus of the framework for juvenile CHIS is to ensure that appropriate weight is given to a child’s best interests and that the practical effect of the enhanced risk assessment is that juveniles are,

“only utilised in extreme circumstances and when other potential sources of information have been exhausted.”

I hope that that goes some way to reassuring noble Lords that the decision to authorise a young person to act as a CHIS, or participate in criminality, is never taken lightly.

I will now set out the additional safeguards that apply to the authorisation of juveniles as CHIS, and which will equally apply when criminal conduct is being authorised. These include authorisation at a more senior level, a shorter duration for authorisations—four months, rather than 12 for adult CHIS—with monthly reviews, and a requirement for an enhanced risk assessment. There must also be an appropriate adult present at meetings between the public authority and the CHIS for those under 16 years of age. To answer another question, appropriate adults are always independent of the police or other investigating authorities. This must be considered on a case-by-case basis for 16 to 17 year-olds.

These safeguards are contained within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order and the updated CHIS code of practice, where the safeguards for juveniles have been further strengthened. The revisions to the code will be subject to a full consultation before they are finalised and will have legal force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will reiterate what I said, which is that I am trying to work out a mechanism for sessions that might be helpful but not leaked, and perhaps where we can give some working examples—again, perhaps in private. We will try to do that if not before Report then during it, but before we come to this amendment.

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

Actually, I have nothing to ask. The noble Baroness answered my point right at the end, after I had asked the clerk if I could speak, so I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I will be brief. I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making on the need for review, but I am not convinced that it needs to be in the Bill. I am not persuaded that it is the right thing to do, although I see the point of a review. When the noble Baroness responds, maybe she can tell us about the detail of future authorisations. Would it be built into the authorisation itself? That would seem the better place for it, but I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness says. As it is, I am not convinced by the amendment or that the issue should be in the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to provide the clarity that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks and persuade the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this is not necessary in the Bill. The current authorisation period of 12 months is consistent with the authorisation for the use and conduct of CHIS, which will need to be in place before criminal conduct can be authorised. Keeping the Bill consistent with the powers laid out in Section 29 will ensure that this power remains operationally workable for the public authorities listed in the Bill.

In the updated CHIS code of practice that accompanies the Bill, it is clear that a criminal conduct authorisation should be relied upon for as short a duration as possible. There is also a requirement on authorising officers to undertake regular reviews to assess whether the authorisation remains necessary and proportionate, and is justified. An authorisation must be cancelled when that is no longer the case.

Authorisations will be specifically and narrowly drafted and, in many cases, the specificity of the authorisation will mean that the criminal conduct authorised is in effect narrowly time-limited. However, there will be occasions when this conduct necessarily extends longer than a four-month period; CHIS who are members of proscribed organisations is a good example of this.

Children: Online Grooming

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, Messenger, which is a Facebook app, had not to date been encrypted, but Facebook has announced its intention to encrypt Messenger from, I think, next year. This is precisely the type of discussion that the Home Secretary and Five Eyes partners are having with Facebook, because not only will law enforcement bodies and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the US not be able to look at what is going on there, but nor will Facebook itself, and that is the crucial thing here.

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

My Lords, these are horrific crimes. Frankly, is it not time to give the directors of the companies that are hosting these images legal civil and criminal responsibility for the content they host? I suspect we would see much swifter action if this were the case, and nothing short of this will do to deal with this abuse.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, although I cannot give the actual details of the online harms Bill, that duty of care will push that responsibility on to those internet service providers and platforms to do just that, to protect our children.

Visas: Visitors from Peru

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 16th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

A number of considerations are taken into account when decisions are made to review visa requirements. They include, among other things, security compliance returns and prosperity. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot discuss the fine details of visa review changes on the Floor of the House, but these are just an example of some of the things that might be considered.

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

My Lords, following on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan, travel to the UK has understandably been devastated by the Covid-19 crisis, with knock-on damage to the economy through lost revenue and from reduced business, academia, commerce, tourism and travel. In the light of that, what action are the Government taking to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to Peru, Latin America or anywhere else in the world, so that, when we can enjoy travel again, trade and commerce can take place unhindered?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can agree with almost everything the noble Lord says. Travel has been absolutely devastated and economies have been devastated through this period. I also agree with him that travel should be made as easy as possible, with no barriers in place. Having a visa requirement is not, in and of itself, a barrier. As I say, the grant rates are very high, and speedy, and visa requirements are kept under review.

Fireworks: Damage

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have to confess to the noble Baroness that my knowledge of sky lanterns is very limited. However, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. That does not quite answer her point, but where there is evidence that an animal is suffering because of such things as sky lanterns, then local authorities will have the powers to enforce on this.

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

My Lords, last year the London fire brigade attended over 2,000 incidents over the Halloween and bonfire night period. Over the last five years, 45% of the fires ignited by fireworks in London during the bonfire night period occurred at residential properties. I support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for fireworks only to be in the hands of professionals, who can deliver an exciting, memorable display safely, for the enjoyment of everyone and minimising the risk to people and property. The Minister’s response to previous questions is disappointing; can she at least say that the Government will keep this under review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can, of course, say to the noble Lord that all legislation is kept under review. If there was evidence of increasing injuries or misuse of fireworks, we would look at it. The Petitions Committee had a good look at this last year and concluded that it could not support a ban on the sale or use of fireworks. However, the noble Lord makes an appropriate point about the responsible use of fireworks. It is very sad that firework displays have not been able to take place this year. It is true that we need to be responsible in using things which are potentially very dangerous.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st October 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the decisions taken by the other place on all these issues are most disappointing. I thought my noble friend Lord Dubs made a convincing case, but sadly it was not listened to in the other place, as is so often the case now. I hope the Government will take a constructive attitude in working with local authorities to protect vulnerable children. Many local authorities have considerable pressures on them in terms of looking after children in care, and I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that there is a positive attitude from the Government to address these concerns, even if they are not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment today.

I note the comment—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also made the point—that the other Motions in this group make reference to all these dangerous criminals who would potentially be released into the public. I think we have to accept that the people we are talking about here are vulnerable people, and that if there are people who are dangerous criminals, there are other procedures to deal with them. We should not be wrapping people up like that: these are vulnerable people who need our help and support. There is an issue about people being locked up in detention when they have done nothing wrong and not knowing when they will get their release date.

The noble Baroness may well say that they are normally released into the community. That is obviously really good news, but if you are locked up in a cell or in a detention centre and you do not know when you will be released, the fact that you will be released at some point in the future may not be a huge comfort to you. Again, we are not going to pursue these issues any further today, but the fact that the Government rely on those arguments underlines the weakness of their case in this respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we will return to these issues at a later date, but we will not be pressing any of them today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, initially challenged me on what the Government have to lose. It is not really about what the Government have to lose; it is a demonstration that, throughout this process, we have constantly articulated just what the Government are doing to ensure that children in care, or other vulnerable people, are able to register for the EU settlement scheme. We have put in quite a lot of resource to ensure that that happens. We have increased the number of organisations helping in this regard from 57 to 72 and we will put significant funding in place to ensure that people eligible to apply do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we are acting as though all detainees are offenders, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the number of people detained who are vulnerable. In fact, a snapshot of offenders from the EU detained at the end of March 2020 found that if a 28-day time limit were in place, we would have been required to release into the community 166 foreign national offenders being held under immigration powers to effect their deportation. Of these offenders, 35 had committed very serious crimes, including murder, rape, offences against children and other serious sexual or violent offences. There is no indefinite detention, but it is necessary sometimes to keep people detained, particularly serious offenders and those frustrating their removal.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we may all have different views of this Government. While some might think that they are useless and incompetent, others might take a different view. However, I think that we would all agree that they certainly make many strange decisions—often ludicrous, inconsistent, contradictory and largely disappointing. This is one example. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a consistent argument has been made about this issue, but the Government are just not listening. That is much to be regretted on the part of the Government because they should have given way on this point, but it is quite clear that they are not going to do so. I do not know if that is down to unelected advisers, the Home Secretary, or the general attitude of the Government as a whole. However, it is clear that they are not going to give way and that is most disappointing. For that reason, we are not going to support sending this issue back to the other place again because I do not think that the Government will change their position.

However, I have a few other comments to make. A few days ago, we had a debate about the costs to enable British children in care to get their British citizenship. The Government were happy to charge over £1,000; there was no issue about that at all. That is many hundreds of pounds more than the cost, so apparently there is no issue there at all. Here, of course, the Government have raised the issue of cost, saying that they are not sure and that it could be too much for people. I have equally made the point by asking for years why we cannot stop council tax payers having to subsidise planning applications. But no, the Government say that we have to continue letting those taxpayers subsidise such applications. That is completely ludicrous, contradictory and inconsistent, but that is what we have before us again today.

In all of these debates, I have never had an answer to this question. The point is made about how we cannot have certificates because they are not needed, everything is now digital, and we should not be worried about it. Yet, at the same time, we are handing out certificates to people who become British citizens. This is done in ceremonies in town halls up and down the country. You have to hand them out, they are signed by the Home Secretary of the day, and you tell the person that the certificate is really important. You hand it to them, a photograph is taken, and off they go with a document that at the moment is signed by Priti Patel. I have handed out hundreds of these things over the years, but I do not believe that those certificates are biometric. I think that they are a piece of paper. I might be wrong about that; perhaps they are biometric now and I do not know. Again, this is from the same department, so it is inconsistent and completely ludicrous. It is a real shame that the Government have not listened and that they are not going to do so. I think that that is much to the regret and shame of the Government.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who moved it.

One of the first areas of disagreement that he raised was on costs. We have used published costs for enrolling biometrics and issuing a BRP, which are £19.20 and £56 respectively. They cover only the casework in the applications and not the significant set-up costs. There are costs of issuing and replacement, and one-off costs of upgrading pre-settled status cards. There is a cost of communication of the change and, of course, of facial technology.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, suggested that the system should be trialled. The fact is that people are using it now. It is not going live on 1 January; people are already using it to prove status. That is proof of the success of the “trial”, as he puts it. Surely the fact that 4 million applications have already been made suggests that the system is working. This takes me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding the difficulties of the system. I have seen how the application process works. It is very easy; I have suggested previously in this place that noble Lords take time to look at just how easy it is to set up.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, also stated his dismay that the PSED has not been published. I do not have any update on my previous statement that we intend to publish it.

On discrimination, the BNO route will be launched in January. Applicants will receive digital status using the technology based on the EU settlement scheme. People receiving that status will be required to use it from January, so the system relates not just to people from EU member states but to our BNO friends who we expect to come here from then. The system is therefore not discriminatory in the sense that our BNO friends will use it from January as well.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is absolutely right: although it might not be the way forward for older people, digital by default is the way forward. It is completely retrograde to talk about physical documents when in fact, to date, the system appears to be working well. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about physical documents being less open to abuse. They are more open to abuse and far easier to forge than a digital status that an employer or landlord can access.

Finally, regarding a power outage at the PNC, I should tell my noble friend Lord Polack that our back-up systems are very robust, as I have previously explained.

I do not think that I will convince some noble Lords—indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, intends to divide the House—but it is a retrograde step to talk about returning to physical documents. I remember my noble friend, joined by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the importance of physical identity, which we fully intend to take forward. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, will withdraw his amendment but I do not think that he will.

Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I mentioned earlier, there are waivers for certain groups of people, particularly children in care. I cannot tell my noble friend how many people did not apply or register last year, but I can say how many did. There were 49,000 applications for registration in 2019, and nearly 46,000 of those were granted, of which over 34,000 were for minors.

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

My Lords, I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes it is right that the immigration system is subsidised by children who are born in Britain and have lived their entire life in Britain and have the right to be British? I think it is wrong, grossly unfair and risks pricing children out of their legitimate rights. There are numerous examples of when the Government have refused to let other bodies recover their costs. I have asked many times here why local bodies cannot recover their planning costs—but the Government constantly refuse to do that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to my noble friend, and say to the noble Lord now, we do not underestimate the significance of that cost, to either an individual or a family. We keep the fees under review, and, for children and their well-being, there are a number of exceptions to fees for applications for leave to remain.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and others, and endorse her comments on the rights of children to register as British citizens and exercise their rights.

I find it shocking that the Government have not given way on the level of the fee and the particular problem of looked-after children. Frankly, it beggars belief that we have not made progress on this during consideration of the Bill. The fact that the previous and present Home Secretaries have raised concerns about the level of the fee should mean that we have some progress. The Home Secretary is the one person who can do something about this, but it appears she will not.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I am persuaded by the evidence and the contributions of many noble Lords in this debate. Let us be clear: these children are entitled to British citizenship. I always thought that British values were those of decency, fair play and justice, but I am afraid none of these is on display here today. What is on display is meanness, unfairness and a failure to act justly. It is an unjust position which has no place in modern Britain. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, having rights is no good if no one tells you that you have them and you are not encouraged to take them up.

Points were made previously about why the amendment could not be accepted, such as the technical point that this is only about EEA and Swiss nationals. Unfortunately, it is; that is because of the scope of the Bill. On the question of finances, how the Government need a fee to cover the costs of the process and ensure the effective running of the department in this area, they cannot have it both ways; for many years, like many other noble Lords, I have been arguing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that all we want is fees to cover the costs of planning. We were repeatedly told that we could not have it and that planning has to be subsidised by the council tax payer. I am afraid you just cannot have that. We do this either everywhere or nowhere at all. On settled status as opposed to citizenship, there is no question which is the better status. If you are entitled to citizenship, you should be able to get it.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, set out the wholly reasonable nature of this amendment. It is asking only for the Home Secretary to lay before this House and the other place a report—nothing else, just a report—which must address the issues as set out in the amendment. I really do not understand why the Government are resisting this. As the noble Lord said, surely with the vulnerable position of these children, particularly looked-after and Roma children, no one could suggest that they are not disadvantaged people who need our help and consideration.

The Government’s reaction to this amendment is more than just disappointing; it is very worrying. We can discuss the hostile environment and Windrush, we can hear the apologies and the assurances they will not happen again, but having heard the Home Secretary’s speech yesterday, I for one fear that no lessons have been learned and that, instead, we are prepared to let these children be at risk. That is unacceptable.

I implore the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for whom I have huge respect—I have worked with her closely many times—at least to give a commitment to the House that she will go away and explain to the Home Secretary the strength of feeling across the House and hopefully, on this one issue, be able to come back on Third Reading having accepted what people are asking for.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling her amendment. I note that it takes a slightly different approach to those previously discussed in Committee, this time concentrating on an initial assessment of how aware the affected groups are of their citizenship rights and, equally, their ability to exercise them. It specifically seeks to highlight those aged under 25 with potential vulnerabilities as warranting particular attention.

Several noble Lords have referred to the Roma community as particularly vulnerable in terms of ensuring their status, certainly throughout the transition period and going into the future. I am very mindful of that. Noble Lords will recall the various voluntary sector organisations I have spoken about which are there specifically and precisely to provide tailored help to those who might slip through the net in terms of their status going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, talked about Wendy Williams; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me where we were up to in taking forward some of the recommendations. She may or may not know that last week the Home Secretary set out a comprehensive plan to take forward the recommendations and reaffirmed her plan for cultural shift in the Home Office.

I know that the amendment does not fit the Bill, if you like, but that does not mean we cannot discuss the various things that noble Lords have raised. I gave an assurance last time that I would write to the Home Secretary to consider what might be required in this area and ensure that she is aware of this House’s feelings. I am taking this forward, but it will take some time to consider; the level of detail in this amendment will be a clear guide to the areas and individuals which the noble Baroness feels require the most support. I am very happy to meet her to discuss these matters. I have already confirmed that I would like to meet the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

A number of noble Lords mentioned things such as “belonging”, which we talked about the other day, and people falling through the gaps and feeling that they really do not belong in society. I completely acknowledge the points that the noble Baroness makes about citizenship costs; I will not tell her that you do not need citizenship to live here, because your Lordships will not accept that sort of answer. I would like and intend to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness to take forward some of these broader issues around societal cohesion, in a way, and integration.

I hope that there can be some reassurance that part of the same commitment made by the Home Secretary was to ensure that nationality laws are fit for the modern day. This is an ongoing process. We have made sure that the process is easier and simpler by moving application forms online, but I know that that is not the point that the noble Baroness is getting at. In terms of accessibility, it is easier, but we are talking about a wider point than just the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, challenges me on the costs of mounting appeals; obviously, I will not talk about the one in hand. I think that, in asylum, immigration and all sorts of areas, the lawyers are making an awful lot of money in these processes.

I will welcome the discussion that we are going to have. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and, with that, I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendments 17 and 25, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others are ones that I fully support. To deal first with science and research, in this instance I agree with the Prime Minister: I want Britain to be a science superpower. That is a wonderful idea and aim, and if we delivered it we would ensure that the wonderful work of our innovation continued. My problem is that we seem to be doing everything possible to ensure that it does not happen. I bet that our competitors in the United States, France and Germany cannot believe their luck given how Britain is acting, as we are doing everything possible to drive people away—the innovators and scientists, the people who want to come to develop new drugs. Look at all areas of work and business; they are being driven away by the attitude of the Government. I find it frankly astonishing that we have to have this debate. It is of course one of the many benefits of Brexit. It keeps on giving, and I find it astonishing that we are here.

I also remembered the words of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in Committee, when he told us that we should not forget that:

“What we do to others will be done to us”.—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 876.]


We are going to find ourselves in all sorts of difficulties, and I will miss what we had. It gives me no pleasure at all to see what Britain is doing.

With regard to the arts, again, it is hard to overestimate the amount of money the arts bring in, and many noble Lords spoke passionately about them. I wanted to mention somebody who changed my life. Franz Busuttil was my music teacher at school; I met him when I was 11, and he taught me how to read music and play musical instruments. I did my Associated Board exams and he opened up my life to the world of the arts and music. Franz was Maltese, of course; he probably would not be allowed in under the present regime, but he changed my life and, when I go to the Globe or a concert, I always think about how Franz did that for me and his contribution to this country as an immigrant.

When you sit in a theatre, such as the Globe, and look around, people from all over the world are sitting there, watching Shakespeare being performed in a theatre very close to where it was performed originally. People often come to Britain—and we want tourists to come here—but they do not often come for the weather; they come for the art, the culture and the fantastic experience they can have. Look at the Edinburgh Festival, the greatest arts festival in the world. That is what this country is all about.

Again, with the decisions we will take here today on this Bill, we are just cutting our nose off to spite our face; it is absolute madness. I fully support these amendments and hope that the noble Baroness can see the passion of many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and give a positive reply.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that people do not come to this country for the weather. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who has engendered a very thoughtful debate, and I am glad to say that I agree with most of the points that noble Lords have made tonight about migrants working in the research, creative arts and entertainment sectors, whose presence in the UK is often facilitated through short visits and who are crucial for this country; it is important to protect them. I also agree that international collaboration and movement of people are very important for these sectors to really thrive.

When noble Lords were making their speeches, I was thinking about the discovery of graphene by two Russian scientists in Manchester. What a difference it has made, not only to Manchester but to the future of innovation in this country and internationally. Our immigration system recognises this fact. I believe that the two sectors that have featured in tonight’s debate already receive what might be considered preferential treatment in the system.

Currently, visiting artists, entertainers and musicians can perform at events, take part in competitions and auditions, make personal appearances and take part in promotional activities for up to six months without the need for formal sponsorship or a work visa. They can also receive payment for appearances at permit-free festivals for up to six months—or for up to one month for a specified engagement—under the visitor route.

Artists wishing to come to the UK for longer-term work will need to do so under the points-based system. However, we will maintain a dedicated immigration route for creative workers under tier 5 of the immigration system. This route will continue to cater for the sector as it does now, permitting a broad range of creative workers to live and work in the UK for up to 12 months at a time. Noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, about musicians who want to come for two years, I understand that they can stay for up to two years if the sponsor signs for it.

As non-visa nationals, EU citizens will benefit from the concession for temporary creative workers looking to remain in the UK for up to three months, without the need to apply for a visa in advance, provided they first secure a certificate of sponsorship. We will also keep the global talent immigration route, which I will say a bit more about when I talk about the research sector, but I mention it here to demonstrate to noble Lords the breadth and range of immigration routes available.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has given us an authoritative, commanding, clear, direct and confident explanation. The noble Lord can do that because of the power of the case he presented: it is simple, clear, and it is just the right thing to do. We on the Labour Benches will support the noble Lord when he divides the House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, EU citizens need to be treated fairly, properly and with respect. The Government have provided nothing to justify what they are proposing to do. I also note that there has been only one speaker tonight in support of the Government, and that is out of not only the Members of the Opposition but the eight speakers from the Government Benches tonight.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, reminded the House of the problems you can get yourself into if you are a landlord. There are serious penalties if you have not checked documents to ensure the person you are renting your property to is somebody who is entitled to rent the property. If you are an employer, you have to check documents to ensure that the person you are employing has the right to be employed. If you get those wrong, you face serious penalties.

I know that if I was in the position of these individuals, I would want a physical document, physical evidence or physical proof that I could put away and, if there was a problem, some years later get out and then justify that I actually had the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. I think we should not underestimate the stress and the worry—we have all seen from the emails we have received how concerned people are about the position of the Government. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, gave a very powerful case on the question of domestic abusers and how abuse is often about control. Here we are, potentially putting people at risk again, having to go back to their abuser to give them that control over their lives again. We need to be very careful here.

Noble Lords who were at the debate in Committee will recall me explaining that I live in Lewisham, and I have done very many citizenship ceremonies where somebody becomes a British citizen. They get a letter from the Home Office and they are told to contact their local authority, and they ring up Lewisham Council—where I live—and they book a place at the next available ceremony. They come along, they bring their letter from the Home Office and they have it checked. I am there as one of the people who officiates at the ceremony, and the registrar—the person who normally does births, marriages and deaths—explains to people how important what they have done is and how proud they should be to be a British citizen. We sing the national anthem, the members swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, and in the final part of the ceremony the individuals come up one by one and I hand them a paper certificate. These are signed by the Home Secretary; I have handed them out from Theresa May, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd. I am absolutely confident that today in the Home Office there are people running off certificates signed by Priti Patel. That is the ludicrous situation we are in.

The Minister did not answer this point when she replied in Committee, but I hope she can address this point tonight. Can she please explain, for me and the House, the logic of and justification for the Home Office refusing individuals who have been granted EU settled status a physical document but, exactly at the same time, requiring those individuals to be granted British citizenship, to attend a ceremony, and at that ceremony be handed a certificate and be told by the official at the ceremony how important this document is? They are told, “You must check it before you leave, it is a really valuable document and you need this”, and how important it is. I cannot see the logic of that argument—it is nonsensical and ludicrous—and I do hope the Minister can address that point. At exactly the same time, not only the same Government but the same government department—talk about facing two different ways at once—are creating this ridiculous position.

I hope that the noble Baroness can step back and look at this farcical situation that the Government are seeking to justify here tonight. As many other noble Lords have said, she is highly respected. I like her very much. As a Minister, she has always been willing to engage with me outside the House and I have been able to raise things with her. I have appreciated that very much. However, I hope that she can go back to the Home Office, speak to the Home Secretary and explain how ridiculous this situation is. These certificates have been handed out with the present Home Secretary’s name on them.

In conclusion, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. We risk appearing to go out of our way to make the lives of our fellow citizens as difficult as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we should be a tolerant House and not seek to do that. There is no justification for behaving or acting like this. The Government are not being reasonable. I hope that they can accept the amendment but, if they do not, I have no doubt that it will be carried overwhelmingly tonight in a Division.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think that there is one thing on which we can all agree this evening—that it is not a great week to be promoting the benefits of technology, and the difficulties have arisen on the immigration Bill as well, which is very irritating.

It is also true to say that, when speaking, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for example, absolutely relied on her iPad, and rightly so. It has been great to see noble Lords trusting the technology. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the past six months have seen us very reliant on technology, and for the most part it has not let us down. In addition, it has staved off loneliness for many people. I congratulate the the3million group on engendering concern on this matter but I hope—in fact, I know—that in the same way as noble Lords have thoughtfully addressed that concern, they will also listen to the points that I will be making this evening.

I think that it was my noble friend Lord Horam who talked about when the post office book was abolished. In fact, I remember when the children’s allowance book was abolished. I really did not trust that the money would be put into my bank account. More recently, the tax disc has been abolished. There is no paper record of you having paid the tax, but somehow the police know that you have because of the technology.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for so thoroughly outlining his case and for providing the House with the chance to discuss the issue of physical documents for EEA citizens who apply under the EU settlement scheme. He knows that I will not agree with him and will try to argue that it is a hindrance to modernising our immigration system. He asked me about the policy equality statement. I understand that it will be published shortly.

Some noble Lords—in fact, I would say almost all, other than my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe—expressed concern about the move to providing access to immigration status online to EEA citizens granted leave under the EU settlement scheme. Like many other government departments, we are moving our services online and there are noble Lords who support digital systems, albeit maybe not in the context of this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, attested that those protected by the withdrawal agreement do not have their rights underpinned by legislation, but of course they do, through the withdrawal agreement Act. Moving to online services is part of our declared aim of moving to a system which is digital by default, whereby all migrants, not just EEA citizens, will have online access to their immigration status, rather than having physical proof. They will be able to access their immigration status online at any time and from anywhere via the view-and-prove service on GOV.UK, which is available through a variety of devices ranging from smartphones to desktop computers. I am very impressed to hear that my noble friend Lord Cormack has availed of the last few months to use computer software. I never thought I would hear him say that.

All this represents a major change. We have recently seen a real shift in how people behave; in the culture and habits of how the Home Office issues proof of immigration status, and the way in which migrants and others will be able to use this. Of course, we want a robust and secure system that is both efficient and convenient. My noble friend Lady Shackleton pointed out the horrors of having anything hacked. We are at the beginning of this important journey and we recognise that some people may not see it this way, but I urge noble Lords to persevere and let us see this journey unfold properly in a systematic and focused way. We have to commence change somewhere, and the EU settlement scheme has provided the right opportunity.

Noble Lords may remember that, not too long ago, we introduced a new application process for the settlement scheme based on a smartphone app. There was an absolute outcry against it, with press stories and complaints about people not being able to use it or adjust to this new way of making an application. However, this process has proved to be a success and over 3.9 million—almost 4 million—people have used it since its launch in August 2018. I challenge any noble Lord who has not seen the process work to take the time to do so. I will arrange for them to have a look; it is very simple. Change obviously brings complexity and resistance, but we have to embrace it and ensure the right mitigation and support for those who need it most. We have done that through the measures I have outlined previously.

As I said earlier, recent events with Covid have highlighted how vital it is that government systems and services are accessed digitally. As a result of the restrictions placed on the public by the pandemic, we have seen a sharp uptake in providers of services moving online and people have shown their ability to adapt. Digital services have enabled this country to cope during the pandemic, enabling many people—not us, obviously—to work from home, shop and obtain government services remotely.

Our online service has enabled many employers to conduct remote right-to-work checks on foreign national employees since January last year—nearly two years. This has removed the need for physical documents to be handed over, enabling social distancing rules to be followed and reducing contagion risks. This service is available to non-EEA holders of biometric residence cards, or biometric residence permits, and to those granted status under the EU settlement scheme. It represented the first step in our journey to make evidence of immigration status accessible online.

Making this status information available via secure online services has also meant that we can simplify and standardise the system of checks for employers, by providing information about an individual’s status in a format that is easy to understand and accessible to all users, removing the need for employers, and others, to authenticate the myriad different physical documents and interpret complex legal terminology or confusing abbreviations. This service provides employers with a secure, auditable record that they have conducted a check on the employee, which they can store electronically. There is no need for them to check whether a document is genuine, or to go through the process of photocopying it, signing and dating it and then filing it away in a folder or cabinet, all of which they have to do when relying on a physical document.

For those individuals, including employers, landlords and other third-party checkers, who have not already made use of the online service, we are developing an extensive package of communications to ensure that everyone is fully aware of the move to digital and how online immigration status can be accessed and used. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, again brought up the issue of the physical document to enable renting. It does enable people to rent, but it is not a proof of status.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I intend to be brief, as this has been a long debate and the time is getting on. Amendment 20, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, along with her other amendments in this group, are ones that I support. My Benches will support the noble Baroness when she divides the House. The amendment would limit detention to a maximum of 28 days. As we have heard, people are often released into the community anyway. As the noble Baroness said, that begs the question of why they need to be detained in the first place.

Huge strain, stress and anguish are placed on those who find themselves detained with no clear idea of when that will end. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the Government have had ample opportunity to bring forward an amendment of their own to deal with this issue. I will point out that there is not a single government amendment at this Report stage, and I do not think—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—that there were any government amendments in Committee either. Sadly, that says to me that the Government have learned nothing, and that the hostile environment is alive and well. Despite the lateness of the night, I hope that the amendment is carried by a large majority.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I too shall try to be as brief as possible. We must have an immigration system which encourages compliance and provides opportunity for people to leave voluntarily, but, where they refuse, we must have the ability to enact that removal. We do not detain indefinitely: there must always be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale, and this is a complex process which requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person whose detention is considered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, argued that we were the only European country without a time limit on detention. It is of course more complex than that. I note that no European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that which is proposed in these amendments, as she outlined. I did not get her maximum/minimum point—maybe because it is just too late in the evening—but the EU seems to be very opaque in that regard. Of course, jurisdictions comparable to ours such as Australia and Canada have not gone down this route.

We have a duty to those in the immigration system, but we also have a duty to protect public safety. The introduction of a detention time limit would severely limit our ability to remove those who refuse to leave voluntarily and would encourage and reward abuse, in some cases from individuals who present a genuine threat to the public. It would also allow those who wish to frustrate the removal process to run down the clock until the time limit is reached and release is guaranteed, regardless of the circumstances of that person’s case, potentially placing the public at higher risk through the release of more foreign national offenders into the community.

Immigration detention is a limited but necessary aspect of the removal process. We agree that it should be used only where necessary, for the minimum number of people and the shortest possible time. The detention estate is now almost 40% smaller than it was five years ago, with 8,000 fewer people entering detention in the year ending December 2019 than in 2015.

Safeguards are central to our commitment to ensure that decisions to detain, and to maintain detention, are properly scrutinised. When a person is referred for detention, an independent detention gatekeeper assesses their suitability for it. Since 2016, this gatekeeper has rejected more than 2,300 referrals for detention.

Case progression panels provide important guidance on the appropriateness of anyone detained under immigration provisions at three-month intervals. We have responded to Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in 2018 and piloted the participation of independent members in these panels, increasing their diversity of professional and cultural expertise, and demonstrably raising the quality of their insight. We are now moving to make this independent element a permanent feature.

Automatic referrals for bail occur at the four-month detention stage for non-foreign national offenders, providing additional external oversight of detention decision-making. It is worth noting that automatic bail referrals are an additional safeguard and do not affect the rights of all detainees to apply for bail at any time, regardless of the timeframe for automatic referrals. Due to the pandemic, bail hearings previously held in court are temporarily being dealt with by remote means, using videolink et cetera. Our response to these unique circumstances has ensured that there is no resulting backlog in bail applications.

The adults at risk in immigration detention policy has strengthened the presumption against detention for vulnerable people, ensuring that people are detained only when evidence of their vulnerability is outweighed by the immigration considerations. Everyone in detention has access to round-the-clock healthcare of the standard that can be expected in the community. Over the last few years, we have increased the ratio of staff to detained individuals in immigration removal centres to ensure that people can access support and advice should they need them. We constantly review and amend staff training materials on the care of vulnerable people.

Detention is already used sparingly and, as noble Lords have said, we continue to pursue alternatives wherever possible; 95% of people who are liable to removal from the UK are managed in the community while their cases are progressed. We are piloting a scheme for vulnerable women who would otherwise be detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre to be housed and supported in the community prior to their removal.

I need to differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. In the current immigration system, it is only in the most complex cases—most frequently, though not always, foreign national offenders where serious criminality is involved—that detention exceeds 29 days. In the year ending December 2019, 74% of people were detained for less than 29 days; only 2% were detained for more than six months.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, talked about the number of cases that we lose on appeal; they are absolutely correct. Many people lodge claims right at the last minute and this makes it very difficult, but there are ways in which we are trying to limit that, for example by dip sampling cases after the two-month point to see if we can expedite them.

Lightweight Polyethylene Chest Plates

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord suggests that there is a problem. I am saying that the testing has not raised any problems with the new lighter equipment. As I have said—I will do this—I will go back and ask when the testing was last done.

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

My Lords, this equipment is vital to protect officers in dangerous situations in the line of duty. How can both the testing and procurement processes run their course and then serious concerns be raised as to the effectiveness of the equipment by the officers who wear these protective plates? Does the Minister not agree that this is potentially an appalling failure of process and procedure, and that an urgent investigation must take place? I do not want that to satisfy myself; I want the officers who wear this equipment to be satisfied that when they go out and put their lives on the line, they have the best possible equipment helping them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that anyone could disagree with the noble Lord’s point. I have said that these things are routinely tested. I will find the exact date when they were last tested. The DSTL does not believe that the Mail on Sunday tests demonstrate a weakness in the equipment that it has approved.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

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

No. In their contributions, the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred to think-tank reports. I will be interested in the reports from those think tanks. I should declare that I am the treasurer of a think tank—the Fabian Society—but I am a bit concerned about these bodies because, unlike the Fabian Society, a lot of them are quite opaque. We do not know who funds them, where the money comes from or who is behind these reports, so I would be a bit more interested in what those bodies had to say if we knew who paid for what. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will speak on the next group, so maybe he can tell us who funded the report to which he has referred many times. I will be interested to hear that.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an important point about the number of EU migrants coming to the UK. In fact, that number has fallen. I carefully read the debate in Committee on this and on many points I found myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I have heard nothing so far in the debate to persuade me otherwise.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green, for retabling his amendment; I acknowledge and respect his expertise in this area. I also apologise for allowing the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, to intervene because I have now set a precedent. I should never have done that. No one is allowed to intervene.

The amendment effectively intends to reintroduce an annual limit on the number of people who may be granted permission to enter the UK to take up skilled employment. The existing cap, which the Government have committed to suspending, is set at 20,700, and is administered on a monthly basis to those seeking entry clearance as a skilled worker. As outlined in Committee, this sounds like a very sensible measure to control and limit migration to the UK, but we cannot know how many people will seek to come to the UK using the new skilled worker route. The impact of some of the key changes, including the expansion of the skills threshold and the reduction of the general salary threshold, is also unknown. Where possible, Home Office analysts have tried to predict possible impacts, and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Green, made so eloquently may well come to pass.

The amendment provides an opportunity for me to reinforce the importance of implementing a flexible immigration system. Our proposals will do that and ensure that the system can be adapted and adjusted, subject to social and economic circumstances—to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, alluded—but we cannot get away from the fact that the amendment would add to the burden on businesses, considerably slow the process of recruiting a skilled migrant, and create uncertainty among employers.

Any cap, including the one we have at present, creates an odd dynamic when it binds us to consider a migrant a valuable addition one month but unwanted the next. This may only be a perception based on the mechanics of a cap, but it is a perception that we want to address, instead focusing on our commitment to continue to attract those with the skills and talents that we need.

The noble Lord highlighted three issues with suspending the cap. The first issue is that an estimated 7 million UK jobs will be open to new or increased international competition. However, these jobs are currently under more competition due to freedom of movement. The imposition of any control, instead of allowing free movement to continue, protects those jobs. Ending free movement and requiring an employer to meet the requirements of being a Home Office licensed sponsor and pay relevant immigration charges, including the skills charge, makes the employment of a resident worker the simpler option. Again, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the Migration Advisory Committee’s September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK. It said that it did

“not believe that the welfare of existing residents is best served by a cap for two reasons. First, the cap, when it binds, constrains inflows of a group of migrants which the evidence suggests are the most economically beneficial … Second, the cap creates unpredictability when it binds as there can be sharp increases in the minimum salary threshold that skilled visa applications face.”

The salary requirements rise as this is the mechanism for selecting which roles are granted permission.

The noble Lord’s second issue is that the number of potential applicants is huge. That has always been the case. The advancements in education around the globe and the increase in populations inevitably mean that more people can qualify as skilled migrants. Addressing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the MAC also said:

“We believe that if the Government wants to reduce migration numbers it would make more economic sense to do so by varying the other aspects of the scheme criteria”.


Therefore, we have retained the immigration skills charge in the future system and will continue to operate a range of salary thresholds.

Thirdly, the noble Lord advocates that there would be a great incentive for employers to go for cheap, competent, non-unionised workers. To this end, we are maintaining the position in our new immigration system that those under the skilled worker route be paid a minimum salary level, which has been calculated so as not to undercut domestic workers. The level and operation of salary thresholds has been based on the advice of the MAC. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that considering the impact of policies on the UK’s economy is an area that the MAC excels in.

Maintaining a sponsor licence also requires compliance with UK employment laws on treating employees equally. We completely accept that the first stage in our plans for the points-based system will need monitoring to assess the impact of the changes on the resident labour market and key sectors, and we are committed to doing just that. On the basis that we are maintaining robust protection for resident workers and providing certainty for UK businesses and employers, and because the key expert advisers have said that we should not apply an annual cap on skilled workers, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Green, is happy to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I made it very clear at the beginning of this debate that I want each child to have secure status, and a declaratory system does not ensure that, both now and in the future.

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

Just to pursue that point, can the Minister set out why that is the case? If you have the children—you know who they are and you have their details—the Government can then set out that the children have settled status, and then you would have records. The problem with Windrush was that there were no records, and that was the dispute, but if the Government actually set out to create records then you have got that system there.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord will appreciate that an application to the EU settlement scheme is an application, with a result of settled status being either confirmed or not. A declaratory scheme confers a deemed leave on a sort of blanket basis, as opposed to each individual applying to the scheme. Therefore, children in years to come might have to prove that they were in the scope of that declaratory scheme; that is what I mean. We are not seeking different ends in this; we are just talking about different ways of going about it. I am trying to explain why an actual application is a more secure way of going about it.

Licensing: Closing Time

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Coming from a county authority, the noble Lord will know that quite often the powers lie at county level regarding planning and other things. It is important that, whether we represent organisations or individuals, everyone plays their part in ensuring that the restrictions can be lifted as swiftly as possible.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register. While I full support the intent behind the restrictions announced by the Prime Minister, there is a real problem with how this is playing out. Shop workers are at the forefront of dealing with violence, threats and abuse, as people who in many cases have had more than enough to drink seek to buy more alcohol from shops, supermarkets and off-licences. Can the Minister today commit to a proper and urgent review taking account of the additional risks that shop workers face, as the shop workers’ union, USDAW, have called for?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I cannot commit to a review, as the noble Lord will know, but I acknowledge that, whether it is a shop worker or a publican whom people are frustrated at, and whether through the lack of freedom over the last few months or because they have drunk too much, these things are happening in shops. I will certainly take this back and I am very happy to speak to him further about this.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 56, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which would add a new clause to the Bill. This clause would provide for children who are EEA and Swiss nationals and in care, along with those entitled to care-leaving support, to be granted automatic indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme.

This amendment has wide cross-party support. The idea behind it had support in the other House, and it has that today. Every speaker so far, from different sides of the House, has spoken in support of the amendment. I am sure the Minister has taken that on board and will want to give us a positive response.

As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, there are vast numbers of these children and the amendment would ensure that none of them become undocumented. Identification is a serious problem, as my noble friend outlined. The different practices adopted by different local authorities is a real problem in itself.

The amendment would speed up the process and enable social workers, who do a fantastic job—we all know that they are under extreme pressure—to apply directly to the Home Office without having to deal with consulates and embassies and all the bureaucracy you have in dealing with another country when trying to get the right documents identified. You would avoid all that work, paperwork and bureaucracy, and go straight to the Home Office.

My noble friend Lord Dubs also asked the Minister about the safeguards in place for children who have pre-settled status, and that question deserves a careful response. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, this is a sensible amendment that really deserves a positive response from the Government.

I agree with all the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, on this amendment. It is the decent thing to do for these children. We are talking about a relatively small number of children, but it would ensure that nobody falls into the trap of becoming undocumented. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said, children in care face all sorts of additional challenges; they are not with their parents and the local authority in effect is looking after them. All this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that they do not have further issues to deal with; a young person leaving care, or in many years’ time, may have the problem of being undocumented and unable to establish their identity properly. This is a very small measure which the Government should give way on.

Like my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, I commend the work of the Children’s Society to identify and raise the plights of these children. The society has campaigned to ensure that they have protection and that their problems are not added to by becoming undocumented. As I say, it is the decent thing to do. Equally, I am sure that we will get a response from the Minister on the amendment, and on the issue in Lesbos.

I should also draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Local authorities do a fantastic job. Certain authorities, particularly Kent, are under particular pressure regarding children’s issues, but they generally do a fantastic job. This is one small measure which the Government could accept to help authorities and make it a bit easier for them in the work that they do. I hope that the Minister can give a positive response to us today, and maybe we can come back to this on Report.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for moving his Amendment 56, which calls for children in care and care leavers who have their right of free movement removed by the Bill to be granted indefinite leave to remain.

May I say at the outset that I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kennedy, and others that no child should be undocumented, and with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we should not create any cracks? So that I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, yet again, I will immediately address the issues that he raised.

First, he asked if we should do as the Germans do. I think we should do as we do. As far as reputational risk is concerned, I do not think we should help these children because it has an influence on our reputation; I think we should help children because it is the right thing to do, and in fact this country has a very long history of helping children who need our support.

The noble Lord asked me if I agree that it is an emergency. Absolutely, I agree that it is an emergency. Of course, I also agree that it is a humanitarian issue. One could not fail to be moved by the plight that these children and their families sometimes go through.

The noble Lord then asked me the million-dollar question: what the Government are doing about it. On 22 April, the UK and Greece signed a joint historic migration plan that reaffirms our commitment to closer co-operation with Greece on a range of migration issues. On the direct help for some of those people on the Greek islands, we have given £500,000 for urgent humanitarian help for the most vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I said was that we did not participate in the EU relocation scheme; I am not sure whether we ever have. I am saying that we will absolutely meet our obligations under Dublin, and if a request comes from the UNHCR for us to take displaced people from Greece who are eligible to come under Dublin, we will of course consider that.

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

My Lords, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand her position to be that the amendment we are discussing is not necessary and could make the situation worse. Apparently the Home Office supports the aims of the amendment but it is not going to act, because there are measures already in place to deal with this question, and it does not want any children to end up undocumented. Maybe I am wrong, but I am sure that if I am, the Minister will correct me. If I am correct, is she giving a cast-iron assurance that the Home Office will not let any of those children become undocumented, and that in the period ahead it will not take decisions that undermine what she has said to us today?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I am saying is that the Home Office, in conjunction with other departments, will ensure that we can identify every child, or indeed adult, in that vulnerable category and that they are assisted where possible. As I said the other day, the EU settlement scheme will not close and reasonable grounds for late applications will not end, so if any people—either adults or children—are identified in future as coming into the category that noble Lords have spoken about, they will be documented.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. Like others, I pay tribute to him for his work in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in your Lordships’ House, combating the evil of modern slavery and human trafficking.

The noble Lord made a very compelling case for the Government to agree to his amendment today, and I do hope the Minister will be able to give us some hope that the Government will meet the issue that the noble Lord addressed the House on. I equally agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, and again commend the work he has done on combating modern slavery.

The new clause, as we have heard, seeks to ensure that proper consideration is given to the impact of the new regulations on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. It is most important that we consider the effect on victims that these changes will make. That is really very important. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, rules, regulations, processes and overdue immigration procedures must work to prevent modern slavery and human trafficking and, obviously, not weaken the position at present.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, again referred to the anti-trafficking directive, and the risk of what is going to be lost on 1 January. I do hope the Minister will address that. It is a huge concern, for many noble Lords, that at any point next year we will find ourselves with weaker provisions and weaker laws that will benefit only criminals and criminal gangs, and really harm victims.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for all his work. It is high time that the Government stood up and backed the noble Lord. His Private Member’s Bill is absolutely right: all he is asking for is that England and Wales have the same provisions that endure in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Bill sailed through this House, but then what happened to it? It crashed on the rocks in the other place. The Government did nothing to support it last time, and it is wrong. The Government really should stand up now and back the noble Lord on his Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I will start by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that I am not going to trot out the line that he suspects I am. Moreover, I will actually thank him for his contribution to this incredibly important debate, and for his continued commitment to the really important objective of ensuring the impacts on victims of modern slavery are considered in changes to the Immigration Rules following this Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said an interesting thing just before she closed, which is that we should consider modern-day slavery across legislation. I think it is absolutely crucial that we consider it across government, because it affects and infects almost every aspect of modern-day life. Noble Lords mentioned William Wilberforce, who is actually one of my heroes. It is over 200 years since we abolished slavery, and yet we have the terrible blight of modern-day slavery in our society. We are committed to tackling this terrible crime. We are now identifying more victims of modern-day slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before. I will just say to the noble Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Kennedy, that there is going to be no diminution in directly affected rights.

We will replace freedom of movement with a points-based system. We remain committed to protecting individuals from modern slavery and exploitation by criminal traffickers and unscrupulous employers. I will not answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because I cannot. Has there been an increase in trafficking during Covid? I think we can all safely say is that there has been an increase in a lot of behind the scenes-type activity that is unpalatable to us all, including things such as domestic violence. I am sure that will reveal itself as time goes on.

We are definitely committed to considering the impact of our policies on vulnerable people, including by fulfilling our public sector equality duties under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, said, on 13 July we published an equalities impact assessment on the points-based system, which considers the impact of our policy on protected characteristics. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I can send that to him if he wishes. We will continue to iterate this document. Our work ensures that we keep at the forefront of our minds the potential consequences of our policies on those who may be susceptible to exploitation.

Across the board, it is crucial that we understand the groups and communities affected by our policies. As the Home Secretary highlighted in her Statement to the House on Wendy Williams’s Windrush Lessons Learned Review on 21 July, she has set out clear expectations that she expects officials to engage with community organisations, civil society and the public and to provide evidence in all advice to Ministers. To answer the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who asked if I would meet him: of course I will meet him to discuss his Private Member’s Bill.

Through the Home Office’s advisory groups, we have undertaken engagement with organisations on the design and development of the future immigration system, including those representing potentially vulnerable individuals. These groups, which include experts on modern slavery, including the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, have been fundamental in helping us to shape our policies and to design the future system. I understand that the Home Secretary has asked officials to facilitate a dedicated session with members of the Vulnerability Advisory Group and experts from the modern slavery sector, to better understand the possible impacts of the new immigration system on potential victims of modern slavery.

The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Alton, asked me about the seasonal workers pilot. A key objective of the pilot is to ensure that migrant workers are adequately protected against modern slavery and other labour abuses. It requires operators to ensure that all workers have a safe working environment—I think he alluded to that—that they are treated fairly, paid properly including time off and breaks; that they are housed in safe, hygienic accommodation; that their passport is never withheld from them; and that robust systems are in place for the reporting of concerns and rapid action. The operators of the scheme are and must remain licensed by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

In addition, the Home Office and Defra also monitor the scheme closely to ensure that operators adhere to the stringent requirements set out for ensuring the safety and well-being of seasonal workers. We work with the sector, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, to achieve these aims. Should either of the selected operators fall short in their duties as a sponsor, action will be taken, up to and including the revocation of their sponsor licence. Other criminal sanctions will be considered as well, as appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked me what the Government were doing to ensure that EU exit does not adversely affect efforts to tackle modern slavery. We already exceed our international obligations to victims under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which will not be affected by EU exit. We will continue our work with European partners to eradicate modern slavery, no matter what shape our relationship with the EU takes. This is an international problem, not just a UK problem, and it is in everyone’s interest that we reach an agreement that equips operational partners on both sides with those capabilities that help protect citizens and bring criminals to justice.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, questioned pre-settled status in terms of the right to benefits. Pre-settled status maintains the right to benefits, and a person would not need discretionary leave to remain under the modern slavery provisions because they would have five years’ leave to remain.

I hope that those explanations satisfy noble Lords and that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 14th September 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this debate has focused on several new clauses which are to be inserted after Clause 4. I have signed up to Amendments 39, 40, 41 and 94, along with my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hamwee, who opened this debate last Wednesday. I am also supportive of Amendment 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

The risk here—it is all about risk—is that many people will not have their status sorted and will not have put a claim in, and are then at risk of detention. Immigration detention is something that should happen only in the most necessary cases and for the shortest period of time possible. My noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett set out, with examples, the effect of detention and the damage of not knowing when you are going to be released on individuals and their mental health. We need to think about that: we can all accept that being locked up and not knowing when it is going to end is not a good place to be.

Taking that into account, can the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, when she responds to the debate, tell us what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the minimum number of people are detained and for the shortest possible time? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said she expected to be told that most people are released from detention after a short period of time, but we need to think about those who are not.

There is also the risk of redetention: when a person reports who is required to do so and then finds themself detained by the authorities. How long will it take for an application to remain to be considered? As we have heard, Amendment 39 would impose a strict time limit of 28 days and ensure that detainees could not be redetained unless—I emphasise “unless”—there has been a specific change in circumstances.

Amendment 40 sets out the conditions for a person to be detained in the first place and Amendment 41 provides for bail hearings during the initial detention period of 96 hours. Amendment 94 brings in the provision six months after the Bill comes into force. This gives the Government time to get all the procedures and regulations correct. I agree with the comments made in that respect by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.

As I said earlier, I am supportive of Amendment 70, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others. This amendment raises the issue of those individuals in immigration detention who are segregated and at risk of being locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. I fully accept that there must be rules and that people must be protected from either themselves or from others, or from causing harm to others. However, we also must be mindful of the effects that detention—of being locked in a cell for long periods of time—can itself have on someone’s mental health. Again, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett made reference to this in her contribution. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said in his contribution that these people have committed no crime. They themselves may be the victims of horrific crimes, and periods of detention can be long and re-detention is a real risk. When considering these amendments, we have to think about the effect of the risk of being re-detained on individuals who may, in the end, be given leave to remain in the United Kingdom. We must remember that these people have committed no crime here in the UK.

I will leave my remarks there; I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about regretting the hybrid procedures, I am very glad of them; they protect noble Lords from the numbers, which are clearly going up.

This is another group of amendments that are not relevant to the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords know that, and I know that they are keen to discuss this issue. They feel very strongly about immigration detention, which has been discussed at great length in this Chamber, but that makes it no less important.

We must have an immigration system which encourages compliance and protects the public. Where people no longer have the right to be in the UK, we must be able to carry out their removal if they do not take the opportunities we provide them to leave the UK voluntarily.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about the concept of unlimited detention. The noble Lord asked me to list the safeguards to ensure that decisions to detain and to maintain detention are not unlimited. When someone is referred for detention, an independent detention gatekeeper assesses that person’s suitability for detention. Since 2016, the gatekeeper has rejected more than 2,300 referrals for detention. After an individual is detained, their continued detention remains under regular review at increasing levels of seniority, especially where there are any significant changes in circumstance.

Anyone detained can apply to either the Home Office or the courts to be released on immigration bail at any point during their detention. In addition, independent panellists and specialists within case progression panels provide really important oversight of the appropriateness of anyone being detained under immigration provisions at three-monthly intervals. Automatic referrals for bail also occur at the four-month detention stage for non-foreign national offenders, providing additional external oversight of detention decision-making. Immigration removal centres also provide those who are detained with access to legal advice should they need it.

The introduction of a detention time limit would severely limit our ability to remove those who refuse to leave voluntarily, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pointed out. It would encourage and reward abuse and, as I have said, there are a number of measures in place to safeguard against any prolonged or unnecessary use of immigration detention.

The decision to detain people who no longer have the right to be in the UK is an integral part of the removal process, but we do not detain indefinitely. There must always be a realistic prospect of removal—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, shaking her head—within a reasonable timescale, and this requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person whose detention is considered. It is already used sparingly: 95% of people who are subject to removal from the UK are at liberty in the community, and the detention estate is now almost 40% smaller than it was five years ago, with 8,000 fewer people entering detention in the year ending December 2019 than in 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The problem that I have here is that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament, things will move along very happily and then, many years from now, when we are all no longer doing what we are doing now, all these problems will arise whereby things are not done properly. We could have immigration centres with Italian and French citizens, people who have lived here but have not regularised their situation, being locked up and held for days and things—and that is just an anathema. My worry is that sometimes things are done and then, many years later, different people come along, things are not done so well, and there is a problem.

I am concerned about the innocent people. I am not concerned about people who have committed offences, who need to be dealt with—this is about innocent people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. They potentially could have been our friends and neighbours, living in our country, who have not regularised their situation. Unfortunately, mistakes happen, for all the assurances, and people find themselves taken away, probably quite unfairly, locked up and stuff. I want to hear a bit more about how we are going to deal with those sorts of situations. I am talking about the innocent people. How are we going to look after those people, who have done nothing wrong? We are all agreed on those who are criminals and have done bad things, but what about the innocent people, who are treated unjustly? That is what I want to hear about.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We will be talking about the EU settlement scheme in future groups. As I will go on to explain, the scheme does not end, in the sense that, if people are here, certainly between now and 2020, and want to regularise their status, they can do. Of course, the reasonable excuses rule will go on indefinitely as to why people have not regularised their status.

Obviously, these amendments have nothing to do with the Bill, but I hope that I have outlined the various degrees of safeguards that will guard against people being detained indefinitely. We will go on to talk about the EU settlement scheme and some of the safeguards that go around that, particularly ongoing, with people who have missed the boat. I hope, with those explanations, the noble Lord is happy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I do not think that anyone in this debate spoke out against the digital rollout or suggested that it was somehow new to require people to provide evidence of their right to rent a property or to work. What is new is that European citizens living here will be required to provide that evidence very shortly.

The Minister did not address at all my points about the staggering inconsistency of the Government. They issue certificates to all British citizens at citizenship ceremonies —hard, paper-copy certificates signed by the Home Secretary. Everyone has them handed out; I have handed out many. At the same time, the same Government and department will not issue any paper certificates to people with settled or pre-settled status. Will the Minister please go away and find out why the Government are acting so inconsistently? If she could write to me I would be happy to receive that letter, but it is ludicrous that there are those two things from the same department at the same time.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Yes, I would be happy to do that.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Amendments 14, 15 and 16 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, seek to bring more clarity to the powers that the Government are taking to make regulations, and that, for me, is a very good thing. As we have heard, words such as “supplementary” and “transition” and the phrase

“to make different provisions for different purposes”

are very unclear, wide-ranging and open to interpretation. These probing amendments today will give the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, the opportunity to add some clarity to the situation and set out for the record the intention and the scope of the powers that the Government are seeking from Parliament. As for Amendment 17, which would remove Clause 4(4), again an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government need the new power would be very welcome.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made some very good points and made them very clearly. As she asked when referring to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, what instructions were given to the parliamentary draftspersons? We need to understand that because clarity is important when you are deciding on legislation. Without it you get yourself into all sorts of problems: courts can get involved and there can be all sorts of other difficulties. What we have been hearing from the other end of the Corridor—certainly the comments from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—about where we are going to be on certain things gives us particular worry. That is why clarity is so important. I look forward to the Minister putting the matter right for us.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for speaking to the amendments in this short debate. I agree that clarity is absolutely necessary when scrutinising the scope and extent of any Bill, as your Lordships do. Amendments 14, 15 and 16 would restrict the scope of the power by removing what are standard provisions in regulating powers concerning transitory and supplementary provisions. Because both the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked what they mean, I shall go through them.

The current illustrative draft instrument does not contain a transitory provision, but it is standard legal drafting to include scope for such a provision should it be identified as necessary. Examples of supplementary provisions can be found where we are retaining some of the references to regulations transposing EU law in benefits legislation. Supplementary provisions update the references to reflect amendments to those regulations, so references to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 become references to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, et cetera. I hope that clarifies the provision on “transitory” and “supplementary”.

I come to Amendment 17. As I explained in response to Amendment 18 and 19, Clause 4(4) allows the regulation-making power to make provision for those who are not exercising free movement rights at the end of the transition period but who are eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme and are therefore still affected by the repeal of free movement. The regulation-making power in Clause 4 is restricted to matters that are as a consequence of or in connection with the ending of free movement. Subsection (4) needs to be read in conjunction with subsection (1). It does not allow changes to the statute book for migrants from the rest of the world, who are not affected by the repeal of free movement. Amendment 17 would hinder our ability to make appropriate provision for all those affected by that appeal.

I hope that with those incredibly clear clarifications, noble Lords will feel happy not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I did email; I do not know where it has gone. Oh sorry, I did not email Question Diary.

I thank the Minister for explaining how certain words have been used in previous legislation, but it would be helpful if she could write to me and place a copy in the Library of the House with some examples, just so that we are absolutely clear. I know she was able to give an example now, but that would be very helpful.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I gave an example of “supplementary”; I did not give any examples of “transitory”. I will write a list and send it to noble Lords.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the purpose, scope and extent of delegated powers conferred on Ministers by Parliament. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill and to the members of the committee who have spoken, including their chair, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

The report raises serious concerns about the inappropriateness of the delegation of powers to the Executive and proposes changes which I fully support and endorse. However, it is disappointing that, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, highlighted, the committee has over some considerable time produced such reports but then the next Bill has come along and the same issues have been identified.

During the Brexit campaign, we kept being told about taking back control and the sovereignty of our Parliament, but here lots of things are being passed on to Ministers and that does not quite seem to me to be taking back control. It is a bit like the pledge about the NHS on the side of the leave campaign bus that has quietly been forgotten about.

Amendments 9 and 10 seek to deal with the first two points raised by the committee by removing the word “appropriate” and inserting “necessary”, and removing the words “or in connection with”. They are amendments to which I have put my name and which I fully support.

Amendment 11 seeks to put on the face of the Bill what the power to make regulations is intended to do. I look forward to hearing the Government’s explanation if they are not prepared to accept this.

Amendment 13 again adds “only”, seeking to ensure the powers taken are used only for what they are intended to do. That seems sensible to me. I hope the Government will accept it.

Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also seeks to ensure that the Bill does only what the Government say they want it to do. Like other amendments in this group, that seems a very sensible and proportionate measure, and I hope the Government will support it.

Amendment 35, which I have signed, seeks to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and ensure that SIs under Clause 4(1) are affirmative. Amendments 36, 37 and 38 follow on from that. The clause takes considerable powers for the Executive, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords tonight. These powers are not justified, and I support those noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rosser, who have opposed the clause standing part of the Bill.

Your Lordships need only look at some of the points raised by the committee to see why noble Lords have tabled their opposition to the clause standing part. In paragraph 19, the committee is “disturbed” that the Government would use words to grant and confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate. In paragraph 26, the committee argues that

“transitional arrangements to protect existing legal rights … should appear on the face of the Bill”.

In paragraph 28, its expressed view is that

“clause 4(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power”.

I hope that, in the response to the debate, we will see considerable movement from the Government and that they take on the comments from the committee, which I fully support.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think I get the committee’s views on the delegated powers in this Bill, and they are not pretty. However, I thank the committee for making them.

I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this group of amendments and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for speaking to Amendment 32. These amendments seek to limit the scope of the regulation-making power in Clause 4 and address the parliamentary procedure for the regulations. It is right that Parliament pays close attention to the provision of delegated powers. I have noted the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its latest report of 25 August.

I am pleased that we have been able to share draft illustrative regulations to be made under this power later this year, subject to Parliament’s approval of the Bill. The draft regulations—which I understand will not be subject to any significant change, to answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from tonight and the other day—will, I hope, provide some reassurance as to how the Government intend to use the regulation-making power in Clause 4.

There are clear constraints on the use of the power in Clause 4. It can be used only to make regulations that amend primary or secondary legislation

“in consequence of, or in connection with”

Part 1 of the Bill on ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It cannot be used in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU more generally or to make wider immigration changes.

Amendment 9 seeks to limit the use of the power to making changes that are considered “necessary”, not “appropriate”. Amendment 10 seeks to limit the power to changes that are only a consequence of Part 1 of the Bill and not in connection with it. I invite noble Lords to consider the illustrative draft of the regulations and take comfort that this power is specifically to deliver the end of free movement; it is not to be used for general changes to the immigration system.

The regulations will make the statute book coherent on the repeal of free movement, align the treatment of EEA citizens arriving from next year with that of non-EEA citizens and implement our obligations to afford equal treatment to those within scope of the residence provisions of the withdrawal agreement—nothing more than that.

Furthermore, Amendment 10 prevents the Government making changes required to align the treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens in the immigration system, which would undermine the new global points-based system. We cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.

The Government have made every effort to specify in the delegated powers memorandum the type of changes to legislation required as a result of ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens, and to make provision for them in draft regulations. However, Amendment 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from making appropriate provision and would unacceptably narrow the scope of the power. Amendment 13 would have the effect of restricting the scope of the power to the powers listed in Clause 4(3).

Amendment 32, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to confine changes to fees and charges to EEA and Swiss citizens. That is already the principal purpose of Clause 4(5). However, the amendment would then prevent us from applying the skills charge to non-EEA family members of EEA citizens and from exempting from the skills charge a non-EEA family member with rights of residence and equal treatment under the withdrawal agreement. It would amount to a breach of the UK’s commitments under those agreements, and for that reason alone we cannot accept the amendment.

It is the will of the British people that we bring free movement to an end. This means ending the bias in our immigration system that favours EEA citizens over the citizens of any other country, which is the primary purpose of the Bill. Limiting the Government’s ability to apply a skills charge to EEA citizens in the same way as they apply to non-EEA citizens would mean that certain elements of free movement had not been fully repealed by the Bill, and that EEA citizens still had an advantage in our immigration system. That is not an outcome that the Government can accept.

On Amendments 35, 36, 37 and 38, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken, the first set of regulations made under this power will be subject to the “made affirmative” procedure, whereby they must be approved by both Houses within 40 days of being made if they are to remain in force. The “made affirmative” procedure is needed in the likely event that there is a short window between Royal Assent to this Bill and the end of the transition period. For that reason, the affirmative procedure proposed by the noble Baroness does not work.

The people of the UK voted to leave the EU and take back control of our laws and our borders. It is therefore imperative that this House helps to deliver on that democratic mandate by ensuring that free movement is brought to an end by 31 December. It is important to ensure that regulations made under this power commence by then. Under the “made affirmative” procedure, both Houses will be asked to approve the regulations within 40 days of them being made for them to continue in force, so Parliament has scrutiny over the use of this power. If Parliament does not approve the regulations then they will cease to have effect, but subsection (10) preserves the effect of anything done under them before that point in order to ensure legal certainty. Using this power does not mean avoiding parliamentary scrutiny—far from it—as the secondary legislation to be made under the power is subject to full parliamentary oversight using established procedures.

I think it is right that Parliament should set the scope of the power in Clause 4 in terms that are appropriate to the purpose of the Bill in ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It is also right that Parliament should retain appropriate oversight over the exercise of this power. However, the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU, and this parliamentary procedure is an essential part of delivering that. I hope the noble Baronesses and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe have been assured of the content of the draft regulations and the explanation of how the Government will use the delegated power. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Furthermore, some noble Lords have spoken to oppose that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. I must emphasise the importance of this power for the effective implementation of the Bill. I trust that sight of the draft regulations provides further reassurance that the power does not give Ministers a blank cheque to make wide-ranging changes to immigration policies. The power can be used only to make provision as a consequence of or in connection with Part 1 of the Bill on the ending of free movement and protecting the status of Irish citizens, but without the power we cannot align immigration treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens, and cannot then build up our global points based system.

The regulations will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny using well-established procedures. Free movement must end on 31 December and the “made affirmative” procedure is needed to ensure regulations made under this power align the treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens who arrive in the country from 1 January 2021. It is important to debate the appropriate use of delegated powers, but the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU and this clause is an essential part of it.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Addington, relating to small breweries and sporting clubs. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have not found a way to do something here. We hear lots of talk about supporting small business, but we seem to be in a rigid situation, where we cannot move out of where we are. I do not see why we could not do something and it is regrettable that we could not find a way. I accept that breweries do not have licences now, but they could be given something temporarily. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that sports clubs are often open only a couple of nights a week. Why have we not sorted them out? In this emergency Bill to deal with Covid-19, we have chosen to ignore them, and that is regrettable. I do not see why the Government have done that. They could have moved a bit more on that. I support the amendments, and it is regrettable that there will be no progress on them.

A convincing case has been laid out for Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords. I supported the idea in Committee. Equally, I see some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I accept that this is a temporary Bill; perhaps doing something permanent in a temporary Bill may be a problem, but the least we should get tonight is a commitment. Technically, this can be done and the Government should get on and make sure that it happens.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly for the interest in Amendment 52, tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Bourne and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, on digital age verification. I could agree with virtually everything said in the debate on this amendment. I am very keen to progress this agenda, and it was in discussing this that my noble friend and I realised that we had a mutual interest in moving this agenda forward—she as a former Digital Minister and me dealing with data and identity in the Home Office.

The Government have carefully considered the concerns raised by this amendment. We support its aims, and we believe that a more holistic approach is needed to enable the use of digital identity in compliance with age-verification requirements in the Licensing Act for the sale of alcohol. As I explained in Committee, the protection of children from harm is an objective that all licensed premises should promote. Age verification plays a critical role in this and it is essential that we have confidence in the forms of identification presented as proof of age to promote this licensing objective. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, the PASS accredits a number of national and local suppliers of ID cards, offering retailers flexibility to choose an appropriate card to fit their needs and fulfil their licence condition.

At present it is not possible to use a digital ID as proof of age for the purchase of alcohol in the UK due to the lack of an agreed industry standard for digital ID. Without trusted digital identity standards in place, licence holders cannot know that market solutions are fit for purpose. This would make it very difficult for them to meet the reasonable precautions and due diligence requirements described in Amendment 52. The lack of an equivalent national standard for digital ID would lead to uncertainty.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was correct in saying that movement on this is slow. I share his frustration and I know that my noble friend, a former Digital Minister, does too, but we do not think it is right to place licence holders in a position in which they are being asked to accept proof of ID without a set of agreed standards, even on temporarily. To do so may place them at risk of committing a criminal offence.

Although the Government are resisting this amendment, we do not disagree with—in fact we are very supportive of—the principle of digital ID. I set out in Committee some of the steps we are taking to progress work in this area. A call for evidence was launched last summer and the responses overwhelmingly agreed that the Government have a role in developing a framework for digital ID use in the UK. Respondents stressed the need for legal certainty on how to use digital identity. The Government will consult on developing legislation to set provisions for consumer protection relating to digital ID, specific rights for individuals, an ability to seek redress if something goes wrong and where responsibility for oversight should lie. The Government will also consult on the appropriate privacy and technical standards for secure digital identity. Sufficient oversight of these standards needs to be established to build trust and to facilitate innovation, which will provide organisations with a handrail to develop new, future-facing products, which I know is exactly what my noble friend seeks.

The Government plan to update existing laws on identity checking to enable digital ID to be used in the greatest number of circumstances. However, it is only when the framework and, most importantly, the standards are in place that we can expect industry and citizens to trust and have confidence in using and accepting digital IDs. Now, knowing our mutual interest in this subject, I hope that the Government and I will be able to draw on my noble friend’s considerable experience in this area as plans develop. I invite her to engage with Ministers and officials on this work as it develops. I am happy to give a commitment, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Barran, that we will work together with my noble friend towards our shared aspiration. To be honest, after four years in the Home Office I am glad that I have found someone interested in my policy area of digital ID and data. I hope that, with that commitment, my noble friend will support me in my longer-term vision for digital identities and will not move her amendment when it is reached.

I now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Holmes. As noble Lords will be aware, the provisions in the Bill add permission for off-sales to most premises with an existing on-sales premises licence. It is not a mechanism to amend the process by which premises licences are granted.

I shall deal with Amendments 42, 43 and 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes, first. My noble friend has spoken passionately in support of small breweries. He is right to say that they have thrived over the past few years and we do not want to lose that. They are important. I note his point that his amendments could help breweries to sell alcohol to the public. However, as I said in Committee, we feel that any proposal that a business should be given a full premises licence without proper scrutiny by the local licensing authority, the police or the public is a step too far.

Similarly, with regard to Amendment 51, we are not currently seeking to make changes to the number of temporary event notices available for application in one year. Temporary licences granted for a limited period should not be used as a route to a permanent licence. As I have set out, there are crucial scrutiny mechanisms in place for granting them to ensure that all premises are selling alcohol responsibly.

Covid-19: Human Trafficking

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble and learned Baroness in the sense that we have paused an awful lot of the processes that might be in place for people seeking asylum. Protecting people during this period and making sure they get the support that they need is at the heart of our endeavours. She has a point—children need specific intervention. I am not entirely sure what the position is with regard to NRM, but the Home Office is very focused on supporting children who might be vulnerable.

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

My Lords, will the Minister first join me in paying tribute to the work of the Clewer Initiative and the leadership shown there by the right reverend Alastair Redfern, the former Lord Bishop of Derby, whose wise words are much missed in this House? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the exploitation of vulnerable people has continued and increased during the pandemic, with victims finding it more difficult to escape their abusers as front-line services have been either reduced or shut down? Can the Minister tell the House what remedial action will be taken to help victims as the country reopens?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I join the noble Lord in his praise for the Clewer Initiative. We feel that victims have been more in danger not because local services are not available to them but because we fear that many of them, particularly in situations of domestic abuse and slavery, are actually locked in with the exploiter or the abuser.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as president of Pubwatch.

Group 1 deals with a range of amendments relating to premises and alcohol licensing, including Amendment 39 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley on temporary event notices and Amendment 41 in my name, which seeks to add a new clause on health and safety to the Bill after Clause 11.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred to there being no votes today. We do not often vote in Committee—I have now been in the House for 10 years. I have made it clear in all my dealings with the Government, at Second Reading and in my meetings with them, which have been very helpful, that I will divide the House on Report if necessary. I have been very clear on that. I hope that we will get some resolution today so that it will not be necessary, but I am certainly not averse to having a vote. I would not be accused of that.

The first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, raises the issue of cumulative impact zones, which are areas defined as contributing to community problems because of alcohol. The noble Lord rightly seeks to stop premises in these zones applying for pavement licences. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, explaining how she has consulted with groups such as Pubwatch and other groups representing towns and city centres.

I hope that the noble Baroness will also detail the wider assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on crime, and in response to Amendment 11, on police consultation, I hope she will confirm that dialogue with police, local authorities and other interested parties will continue after measures in the Bill are implemented.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, made the point, which I agree with, about the need for the new street drinking to be controlled and managed safely. People can then relax and support the local economy while doing so safely and helping to avoid a second spike. That is very important.

My Amendment 39, plus two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, deal with how the provisions can help businesses which do not have the necessary licence presently, as they rely on temporary event notices. This would also help street vendors who have been hit particularly hard in this crisis and have seen their doors close, some for good. Up to 15,000 businesses have lost all their income overnight and many tens of thousands of pounds have been tied up in rent for music festivals and rolled over to 2021.

The amendment would also help small breweries, which have suffered. Many noble Lords have spoken about the support for the small brewery industry. As we have heard, small breweries have seen up to 82% of their sales reduced because of Covid-19. They have not received the same level of financial support as pubs and the hospitality sector, and that is a matter of regret. One in four breweries—about 500 of the 2,000—does not currently have any way to sell directly to the public. The Government should adopt this measure as a way of helping them in the months ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, made a convincing case for the need to help small breweries, as did my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lord Wood of Anfield. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, these small breweries have made a fantastic contribution to the variety and type of beers sold in the UK; they employ local people, and they have been devastated. We need to do something and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us a positive response.

My Amendment 41 seeks to highlight the importance of workers’ safety in the hospitality sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, also referred to. I am grateful to the support I have had from the Bakers, Food, and Allied Workers’ Union for its contribution about how to address this issue. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will address issues such as the handling of cash and how that can be limited. In pubs and other small venues, small amounts of money are handed over. There are payment companies like Worldpay and Shopify, but in many cases if you go into a pub or a small shop and want to pay by debit card, or if you spend less than £10 or £15, they charge you. There needs to be some way in which the companies will not charge the 10p that they presently do. What contribution can they make to ensure that people use less cash and pay by debit card more? Companies would need to step up to the plate and maybe the Government could ask them to do that. It would certainly help reduce the amount of cash being used, with the benefits that that would bring.

It would be interesting to hear about the protection of security staff at entrances to licensed premises. That is very difficult normally, but particularly now that we are talking about social distancing. What support are the Government going to give those staff to ensure they can do their job properly as well as being safe?

How do we ensure that toilets are safe for staff and customers? What discussion has the Minister had with the British Toilet Association including advice on keeping toilets clean and safe? This will be of paramount importance for staff who need to ensure their toilets are kept clean and safe for their customers. Can the noble Baroness also explain what guidance the Government will offer to pubs on these other issues?

Other amendments in the group raise important points, and I hope that we will get a detailed response, particularly on Amendment 44, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They both made a clear case about allowing better enforcement of the drinking regulations, which would be welcomed. It will be interesting to see whether it is possible to bring that forward quickly. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made it clear that there is support in the sector for bringing these matters in quickly.

I will leave my comments there and look forward to the detailed response from the Minister.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who manages to get cannabis into every debate—I admire her tenacity. If she is agreeable, I will respond to some of her comments in group six.

The general tenor of this debate is that people support the context in which this Bill is proposed, to get the economy moving and, crucially, the fact that it is sunsetted to next September. As my noble friend Lady Noakes clearly articulated, this is not about the norm but about emergency measures to get the economy moving again. As this mistake has been made a couple of times, it is important to distinguish between pavement licences and off-sales licences, which of course supermarkets have got anyway.

Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfe seeks to prevent the granting of pavement licences to businesses in cumulative impact zones. It is right that cumulative impact and potential for nuisance and disorder be considered when granting these pavement licences. That is why the Bill gives local authorities the ability to effectively manage risks in their local area. If a local authority thinks problems related to alcohol or anything else could occur, they can refuse an application for a pavement licence. In granting these licences, they may also impose conditions and if these conditions are breached, the local authority may issue a notice requiring the breach to be remedied. Local authorities can also revoke pavement licences in several situations including when the licence is causing risk to public health or safety or causing anti-social behaviour and nuisance. I hope my noble friend will agree it is important to retain local authority discretion in this area and he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 3 is also in the name of my noble friend, and I appreciate the points he has made. We expect the pavement and alcohol licencing measures to benefit cafes, restaurants and pubs primarily. However, it is important that the Government support economic recovery whenever they can, which is why this fast-track route is available to all businesses selling and serving food and drink. It will mean that a range of businesses, including some shops, theatres, and galleries, will be able to apply for pavement licences and off-sale licences, maximising the economic impact of these temporary measures. For the reasons I have set out I am not able to accept this amendment and I hope that my noble friend will not press it to a vote.

Amendment 11 is the last of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Balfe. I assure noble Lords that the Bill requires local authorities to consult such persons as the local authority considers appropriate before determining an application for a pavement licence.

To answer my noble friend Lord Sheikh and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, the Government expect that this would include the local police force, but believe that the local authority can and should use its discretion and local knowledge to decide who to consult. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, directly: yes, we have spoken to the police. We have engaged with them throughout. The most recent time that I spoke directly to Martin Hewitt was last Friday, just before we went into super Saturday. We will continue to engage with them throughout.

Covid-19: Domestic Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Baroness Greengross?

We will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

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

My Lords, additional funding is welcome, but I do not believe that it is enough to cope with the surge of domestic abuse during the pandemic. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, what specific additional work are the Government funding to help children who could be victims or who witness this criminal behaviour, because of the trauma it causes and the risk that it will be normalised in the home as acceptable behaviour and carried on into future generations?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord. He is absolutely right that what an adult experiences as domestic violence the child will also feel, whether directly or indirectly, from that domestic violence. Children are part of the support package, so if the mother is safe—it is usually the mother—the child will be safe. But various charities are working with women and children to ensure their safety during this pandemic.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. Amendment 2 deals with the proposed statutory requirements for a consultation, the laying of statements before Parliament setting out the risks of any amendment to add, vary or remove a territory to the Bill and, in the case of additions, confirming that a territory does not abuse the Interpol red notice system prior to laying any regulations which seek to amend the territories subject to the Bill.

The Government are committed to ensuring that Parliament has the ability to question and decide on whether any new territories should come within scope. Therefore, it is mandated in the Bill that any Government wishing to add a new territory should do so through the affirmative resolution procedure. Any statutory instrument laid before Parliament will, of course, be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum that will set out the legislative context and the policy reason for the instrument. This procedure will give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise proposals and allow the House to reject any proposals to add, remove or vary any territory to, from or in the Bill. The reasoning put forward will need to satisfy Parliament that the territory in scope does not abuse Interpol red notices or create unacceptable risks.

While extradition is a reserved matter, relevant officials are engaged in regular discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations about how it should operate in practice. They would of course engage with them as a matter of good practice were any secondary legislation to be introduced in relation to it. Similarly, several relevant NGOs and expert legal practitioners have been consulted by officials in the normal way; this answers the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. All external stakeholders are able to make direct contact with parliamentarians so that their views are included in all debates connected with secondary legislation associated with the Bill, as they have done during its current passage by contacting several noble Lords in this House.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, talked about the abuse of Interpol channels. I will expand on that a bit. In arguing that maybe a power should not be enacted, given previous abuse of Interpol channels by some hostile states, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, cited the case of Bill Browder. International organisations like Interpol are critical to international law enforcement co-operation and are aligned with our vision of a global Britain. Interpol provides a secure channel through which we exchange information on a police-to-police basis for action. The UK continues to work with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol, which I was delighted about. It is the most senior operational role in that organisation. A UK government lawyer has also been seconded to the Interpol notices and diffusion task force, to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states.

In terms of the specification of non-trusted countries, the power will be available only in relation to requests from the countries specified in the Bill—countries in whose criminal justice systems we have a high level of confidence, and that do not abuse Interpol systems. The Government will not specify any country that is not suitable. The addition of any country must be approved by both Houses, and I trust that neither House will be content to approve the addition of a country about which we have concern.

I will try to make it easy for the House, because we will now have our first ever virtual vote in the House of Lords. I understand that noble Lords would like to divide on this, and I hope that they will join me in resisting the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark [V]]

My Lords, this has been a good short debate. I thank my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lord Adonis, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for their support. All noble Lords carefully set out the need for this amendment in a most convincing way. I am not persuaded by the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, which I found disappointing. I will not disappoint her, and I will make it very clear that I certainly wish to test the opinion of the House in this first ever virtual vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. As noble Lords have heard, this issue has been considered by the House as the Bill has made its progress through the various stages. What is proposed here today is simple, effective and, I contend, good government.

Surely it must be right that when we are designating countries that we wish to form an extradition agreement with, after the detailed work has taken place, Parliament should have the opportunity to accept or reject the designation for an individual territory. Parliament generally, and this House in particular, does not often vote down regulations. We may pass Motions to Regret or debate the merits of what is proposed, and many may express deep reservations, but fatal Motions are very rare.

This amendment is important; it is good practice and what good government should be all about. It guards against this or any future Government, of whatever political persuasion, seeking to group together a number of countries and push them through en bloc where, for example, nine of the 10 countries proposed have good reputations, a good track record and respect for the rule of law, do not persecute dissidents, do not abuse human rights and do not abuse Interpol red notices, but the remaining country has a more questionable record on one, or a number of, the issues I have raised. In such a case, it would be wrong for the Government to try to force through an agreement under the cover of Parliament not wanting to reject the other territories, and would give the country about which questions have been asked some form of protection that it does not deserve, making the approval a fait accompli. Parliament should, in all circumstances, guard against that.

If passed, this amendment would allow Parliament, on the rare occasion that it rejects regulations, to do so quite clearly on the record of the individual territory that the Government propose to sign an agreement with. That is right, proportionate and the sensible way to deal with this important part of public policy; no other agreement will be put at risk. It is good government, and I hope noble Lords will support the amendment if it is put to the vote.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, on previous occasions this House has spoken at length on the question of what constitutes appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, in the wider sense, in relation to the addition of any territory, and has just done so again on Amendment 2. I will now expand further in addressing Amendment 3, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, which seeks to mandate that this be done by individual statutory instrument for each suggested country.

I was slightly dismayed to hear noble Lords talk about mutual extradition arrangements because, as I have clarified on several occasions, this has not, and never has been, about mutual extradition arrangements. We do not do this on behalf of other countries, and if, for example, we did it on behalf of Turkey, the courts would throw it out—even if the Government could get it through Parliament, the courts would throw it out.

When this issue was debated in Committee, it was pointed out that statutory instruments that seek to specify new territories are not amendable. Some feel that this may create a difficulty for this House if regulations were laid which sought to specify multiple countries. As I have said before, the process of potentially listing multiple countries already exists for adding territories to both parts of the Extradition Act 2003.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who engaged very constructively with the Bill, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The Chief Whip’s beeper is going so I think he wants me to keep my comments short.

Extradition is not an easy subject, but this has been most interesting legislation, with very well-drafted and thoughtful amendments. Everyone will benefit from the work done on this. I particularly thank officials from the Home Office, who have supported me so brilliantly throughout. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark [V]]

My Lords, I echo the noble Baroness’s comments. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. I enjoyed working with everybody concerned. I think that we have made the Bill better. As always, the noble Baroness has been courteous and kind and always prepared to engage with me constructively. I also thank all her officials from the Home Office for the way they have worked with me during the Bill’s passage.

Domestic Violence

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government are monitoring and responding to domestic abuse issues arising during this period, and £28 million of the £750 million announced by the Treasury for charities will go to domestic abuse charities to help victims to continue to access their services. The Home Office has separately provided £2 million to support helpline and website provision, and the recently launched #YouAreNotAlone campaign is helping to raise awareness of this crime while directing victims to support services.

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

We all look forward to the Domestic Abuse Bill becoming law, but that will not be for several months. Victims of domestic abuse need additional support and help immediately. Will the Minister agree to go back, speak to the Home Secretary and explore the possibility of a series of public information films on TV channels in the UK setting out that domestic abuse is a crime, that victims are not alone, that help and support is at the end of the phone and that by texting or clicking on a website we will come to their aid?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will know the web facilities that are available, and the Home Office has separately provided £2 million to support helpline and website provision. On his broader question about a mainstream public broadcasting campaign, I most certainly will go back to the Home Secretary, but at this time I would like to avoid—I know the noble Lord will agree with me—having perpetrators and their victims sitting side by side while such information comes on the television. It might create additional tensions within the home. However, I will take the idea back and discuss the matter with the Home Secretary.

Domestic Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Baroness will agree that we have always had a cross-government approach on domestic violence. Certainly, some of the round tables that we had before coronavirus, in the lead-up to the Domestic Abuse Bill, were very consensual and collaborative. It is certainly something that I will continue to promote. We have been meeting and engaging virtually with charities right from the start of the outbreak of this pandemic.

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

We are also concerned about children trapped in dangerous domestic situations. What measures are the Government taking to protect those children? More widely, can the Minister say what they are doing to protect children at risk of sexual and other abuse?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I recognise the noble Lord’s point about children—they are at the brunt of abuse, or are witnesses to abuse. As I meant to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I am on a call every day with the Home Secretary and her operational partners, who are very alive to what might be going on behind closed doors. In the last four weeks, the NCA has developed and disseminated 1,060 child sexual abuse packages for police forces to investigate. Those figures are horrific, but it is testament to the good work of our police forces.

Operation Midland

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is quite a lot in my noble friend’s follow-up question. I join him in paying tribute to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who took very swift action in dealing with this. It is regrettable that there was no plan in place to deliver sustained improvements after Sir Richard’s review. Both HMICFRS and the IOPC have now found that the MPS has delivered significant improvements but, with respect to keeping track of those improvements, the Home Secretary will continue to seek assurances from the MPS that those improvements are being embedded across the force. On whether we will launch an inquiry into Operation Conifer, Operation Conifer and Operation Midland were quite different investigations. Operation Conifer has been subject to significant scrutiny. As Wiltshire Police has made clear, Operation Conifer did not pursue further inquiries into Carl Beech’s allegations after deciding that there was undermining evidence.

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

My Lords, I see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about Operation Conifer. In respect of all the allegations of historical sexual abuse, can the Minister tell the House how many convictions there have been to date?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am glad that the noble Lord raises this because we need to see this in the broader context of historical abuse against children, of which there have been 11,346 non-recent allegations; that is a significant number. In total, 4,024 convictions have resulted from this. It has most definitely been something worth pursuing.

Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th March 2020 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for explaining the order. I have no particular comments to make in respect of Norway and Iceland becoming Part 1, and no longer being Part 2, territories other than that, for me, it illustrates what a stupid decision it is no longer to take part in the European arrest warrant procedure. That is obviously for another time but I think that it will benefit nobody but criminals; I am sure that we will come back to that in other debates.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, outlined, there are some concerns about Kuwait and Morocco. In respect of Kuwait, the treaty was signed in 2016 but, since then, it has resumed executions and is now talking about lowering the age at which someone can be executed. There are genuine concerns about that and it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could explain what the process will be. We are genuinely worried. We do not support the death penalty in any circumstances and it would be very worrying if people could potentially be sent back to face it. In addition, Kuwait outlaws same-sex relationships, with a maximum prison sentence of seven years, so, again, we would be very worried if someone in that situation were to be extradited to Kuwait.

It would be useful to hear from the noble Baroness whether the Government have received any assurances from the Kuwaiti authorities since the treaty was signed in 2016 and since that country changed its laws regarding executions. In this respect, in 2018, my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury tabled a Motion that was debated on the Floor of the House. It would be useful to know whether anything happened following that Motion being debated. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for the questions on this statutory instrument that they have rightly asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether our intention in the future is to remain part of the ECHR. At the moment, that is our intention, although, as she acknowledged, I cannot speak about what will happen in the future.

The question that I thought might be brought up was about the death penalty in Kuwait. It is important to make it clear at the outset that extradition is prohibited by statute if the person concerned might face the death penalty, unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed. The UK Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. As we all know, it undermines human dignity and there is no conclusive evidence that it is a deterrent. Any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is clearly irreparable, so extradition from the UK is not possible where the person has been, will be or could be sentenced to death, and that is made explicitly clear in the Extradition Act.

Extradition is obviously a very important tool in bringing perpetrators to justice. We can maintain extradition relations with countries that have the death penalty while making it absolutely clear that we will never allow a person to be extradited from the UK if they will face the death penalty elsewhere.

Kuwait and Morocco are not listed as priority countries in the FCO’s human rights report. Therefore, no explicit exchange of human rights assurances was sought in addition to those that make up the extradition treaty. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is all the more reason for us to be explicit on extradition and the death penalty.

Our very good relations with both Kuwait and Morocco provide further comfort, so we can raise a range of human rights issues with them. We do so in the context of ongoing bilateral dialogue.

On LGBT status, it is important to note that the same standard of safeguards applies to UK extradition relations with all Part 2 countries. Whether a request is compatible with a person’s human rights is assessed by the UK’s judiciary in extradition cases. If a court found that a person would, for example, be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment as a result of their extradition, they would not be extradited. I hope that provides the comfort that the Committee rightly seeks on this statutory instrument.

Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

It is absolutely fine. I shall not repeat them because it would detain the Committee longer than necessary, but the noble Baroness has raised some very important points. I support the regulations and we are pleased they are here, but our concern and worry is that the people who are vulnerable are those who have not picked up on the need to use this system. If they do not use it, they will find themselves, in June 2021, to be in the UK illegally, even if they have been here for many years. That is what we are worried about.

The other point of concern is that there have been a few issues in the Home Office in terms of appeals and other problems in the past. We are very worried that someone might find themselves in difficulty, so what we are looking for from the Minister is some reassurance about that and about how people will be treated. What will the Government do to ensure that people know they need to apply for this? It may well be that some of those people who are here from elsewhere in Europe are in quite low-paid jobs, do not have a lot of money and are just not picking up on it. What we do not want is a situation where people do not understand that they need to apply and find themselves in difficulty with the authorities and potentially being removed from this country when, had they applied, they would have been given the right to stay here. That is the reassurance every noble Lord here is looking for. In principle, I am very happy with there now being a right to appeal, so I will leave it there.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I thought this would be the easy SI and that every noble Lord would be so happy with the appeal processes. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why so many appeals are successful. An appeal may succeed where new information is provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am sorry for treating this as a conversation, but I understand that their funding goes to the 31st of this month, but they need to know, if they do not know already, whether they will be able to employ people to continue the service.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I understand that when this came up in the Commons the Minister said the thing should be resolved in a couple of weeks. That was a week ago.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is because we will be announcing the arrangements for the financial year 2020-21 shortly—in the Budget, I am guessing. I hope that rather clumsily answers the noble Baroness’s questions.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally understand that point. It is frustrating for any group or organisation waiting for future funding announcements to be in this position right at the end of the financial year; I really get that. I just want to answer the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on vulnerable people. As he knows, we have set out some funding for organisations who will help vulnerable people. I think they are the last cohort of people on whom our attention will need to focus: as he says, people who do not even know that they must apply. That work is well under way across the country and, given the number of applicants, which is 3.2 million, it is clearly going well for most people, but he is right to raise that final cohort.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am glad that the noble Baroness has recognised that point, but can we have an assurance that the Government will look at them sympathetically? There will be people who do not know that they have to apply and, in a few months’ or a year’s time, find themselves illegally in this country who thought they were here legally. I hope that, at that point, the Government will treat people reasonably and understand that it may well be through no fault of their own—they have not picked it up—they are in these difficult situations.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Totally, and that is what this reasonable grounds process is all about. We actually want to find reasons to grant people settled status, so the point the noble Lord makes about not being harsh on people is absolutely right. The other day, I came across a Romanian lady who did not know what to do. I helped to point her in the right direction of applying. Yes, those people who still do not know now will need that extra bit of help. I beg to move.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 5th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We will get on to my noble friend’s point, but we use Parliament to make law rather than to make points. I hope he will respect the point that I make.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked about obligation to extradite. He is absolutely right. The Bill creates powers for the police, not obligations to other countries.

Amendment 2 requests the publication of an annual statement on arrests. The NCA already keeps data and publishes statistics around arrest volumes in relation to Part 1 of the Extradition Act. It does it without being required to do so by primary legislation. We have no doubt that it will similarly do so in respect of arrests under this new arrest power, as this is a sensible operational practice. I have sympathy for the amendment, so I have asked officials to look at how we can give the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, some reassurance. I hope he will accept that I will liaise with him between now and Report.

I am not persuaded that the either the Secretary of State or the NCA require a statutory obligation to take these steps. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendments, but we will have further discussions between now and Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am obviously happy to withdraw my amendment for the moment.

I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has also made some important points, which I know we will come to later.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned Parliamentary Questions. Sometimes, the Answers we get are not very good, to say the least. That goes across government. I am going to have to start tabling Questions about Parliamentary Answers. I asked one recently of another department. I asked, “What do we here?” and the Answer had no bearing whatever on the Question. I raised that with the Minister concerned and he accepted that. I thought, “Just answer the Question. If you can’t answer it, tell me you can’t answer it.” They had sent back a ridiculous Answer that had no bearing and it is not good enough. Unfortunately, that is a problem across government. Maybe we need a debate in the House about it. I am going to try putting in FoIs and comparing answers between PQs and FoIs. Will the answers be as bad there? We will see. But that is a separate issue. I would love to think that PQs were the answer; unfortunately, in my experience of being here for nearly 10 years, they are not.

Having said that, I am pleased with the Minister’s response, especially to my second amendment. I look forward to further discussions between now and Report. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Amendment 5 in this group is in my name. It would simply put “National Crime Agency” into the Bill. Throughout the Bill, there are references to the “designated authority”, but there is no mention of a specific agency. I am sure that the Minister will set out why the Bill is framed in that way and I look forward to that explanation.

Other amendments in this group are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They are all useful, as they give the Minister the opportunity to explain further the Government’s reasoning in specific areas and to convince the Grand Committee of the protections in the Bill.

On Amendment 4, who will be responsible and accountable if the safeguards fail and we end up complying with a request that is politically motivated? Amendment 11 would take away the uncertainty built into the Bill. I do not like phrases such as “the designated authority believes”. “Believes” is a strange word to have in legislation. I like there to be a bit more certainty than is offered by a word such as “believes”. It seems very loose and open to all sorts of interpretations by all sorts of people.

Amendment 11A raises the circumstance where somebody could be rearrested under a new certificate. I accept that circumstances can change and maybe those powers are needed, but if somebody has been released under one certificate, we need to make clear what would need to change for them to be rearrested under a new one.

Amendment 11C has my full support. In many ways, it is a compromise between what the Bill says and what Amendment 5 says. Doing it through an SI is probably the best way forward, so I fully support Amendment 11C. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their points on these amendments. They have been grouped together as dealing with the functions of the designated authority and the criteria applied by it in certifying requests.

Amendment 4 proposes a new criterion for certification. This would require the designated authority to be satisfied that the request is not politically motivated. Making consideration of political motivation a precondition of certification for the designated authority would reverse the present position for arrests under the Extradition Act 2003. Presently, the courts are required to consider during the substantive extradition hearing whether any of the statutory bars to extradition apply. These statutory bars include whether the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing an individual on account of their political opinions—that comes under Section 81 of the Extradition Act 2003. The Government’s position remains that it is right that the judge considers these points based on all the evidence before him or her during the substantive hearing and not the NCA prior to arrest. It is the judge who is ultimately accountable.

Furthermore, we are all aware that the Extradition Act contains substantial safeguards in respect of requests motivated by reason of the requested person’s political views. These safeguards will continue to apply, and we fully expect the courts to continue to exercise their powers of scrutiny as usual.

Arguments of political motivation are of course not usually simple. It is right that the question of whether an individual extradition request can be described as politically motivated should be assessed by a judge before an open court. It is vital, of course, that the requested person should be able to put their arguments on this basis to a judge, but it is also crucial, in the fulfilment of our obligations under the international arrangements on extradition that give rise to such proceedings, that the requesting authority should be able to respond to such arguments and put their own case as to why the request is not politically motivated. This should be openly and fairly arbitrated, so importing this consideration into the process for determining whether an individual may be arrested would be at odds with existing extradition law. Noble Lords will be aware that judges and justices of the peace are not required to consider such factors when deciding whether to issue an arrest warrant under Section 71 or Section 73 of the 2003 Act.

Were the designated authority to make such a deliberation in effectively, it would need to be able to invite representations on the point from both the requesting authority and the requested person in each case before certification. Not only would this be hugely resource-intensive, it would also advertise to the wanted person that they are wanted. I should note that the designated authority, as a public body, would already be under an obligation to act compatibly with convention rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. At the point of certification, this will include consideration of whether an arrest is ECHR-compatible.

I bring the attention of noble Lords to the types of territories proposed as appropriate specified territories. These are democracies whose criminal justice systems are rooted in the rule of law. I am certain Parliament would not accept the addition to the schedule of territories that we believed would send the UK politically motivated arrest requests. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that there is no gap in safeguards here and that, consequently, she will be content with withdraw her amendment.

She also asked what is meant by the “seriousness of the conduct”. The language mirrors the test in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. As she thought, there is indeed case law on the point. The intention is to capture only conduct sufficiently serious to ensure that the power is used only where proportionate. For example, the minor theft of an item of food from a supermarket or a very small amount of money is unlikely, without exceptional circumstances, to be sufficiently serious. Only when the designated authority decides that the offence satisfies the test will it be able to certify the request.

I turn now to Amendment 5, which seeks to define the designated authority as the National Crime Agency in the Bill. Our approach here mirrors that of the designation of the authority responsible for certification of European arrest warrants under Part 1 of the Act. The Government consider that the designation of the authority responsible for issuing a certificate is an appropriate matter to be left to secondary legislation. A regulation-making power affords the appropriate degree of flexibility to amend the designated authority in light of changing circumstances, including alterations to the functions of law enforcement bodies in the UK. To future-proof the legislation, the Government believe that the current drafting leaves an appropriate amount of flexibility. As I said, the Government’s intention is initially to designate the NCA, which is the UK’s national central bureau for Interpol, as the designated authority. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that we have got the balance right and that he will be content not to press his amendment.

I turn finally to Amendment 11, on requests made in the “approved way”. My noble friend’s amendment suggests that a request should be considered to have been made in the approved way only if it is made by an authority that has the function of making such requests in the territory concerned, rather than an authority which the designated authority believes to have this function.

Perhaps I may momentarily be a bit philosophical. The amendment attempts to base the assessment of the authority’s function on an objective truth. That is admirable from the point of view of legal certainty, but the designated authority does not have a monopoly on truth. The best it could do in practice, when making the assessment described in the amendment, would be to decide, to the best of its ability, whether the authority in question has the function of making such requests, arriving at what I think we would characterise as being a belief that it does so. Of course, the designated authority, as a public body, must take decisions that are reasonable and rational.

As such, we expect there to be no difference between how the assessment would be made in practice under the amendment and how it would be made under the existing text. The benefit of the text, as we have proposed it, is that it mirrors language elsewhere in the Extradition Act—for example, when the designated authority under Part 1 may issue a certificate in relation to a warrant and when the Secretary of State may issue a certificate under Part 2.

On the perceived risk implicit in Amendment 11A—that an arrested person could be rearrested for the same thing, having been discharged by a court, perhaps because they were not produced at court on time or for some other failing—I reassure the Committee that this is neither the intention nor the effect of the new sections in the Bill. New Section 74A(8) makes clear that an arrested person may

“not be arrested again in reliance of the same certificate”

if they have previously been discharged. The intention of this drafting is to stipulate that an individual may not be arrested again on the basis of the same international arrest request once a judge has discharged them. This mirrors Section 6 of the Extradition Act 2003, which provides for the same thing, where a person provisionally arrested on the basis of a belief relating to a European arrest warrant may not be arrested again on the basis of a belief relating to the same European arrest warrant.

On top of that, new Section 74B(3) requires that a certificate has to have been withdrawn before any arrest takes place to allow a new one to be issued relating to the same request. This again illustrates that a further certificate cannot simply be issued on the basis of the same request once an individual arrested under this power has been discharged by a judge.

Of course, it is vital that a certificate can be issued on the basis of a new request, or on the basis of a wholly different request, so that an individual wanted for another crime is not immune to any further arrest because they were once arrested and discharged for a different crime. Organised transnational offences, such as people trafficking, often involve offences in different countries, on different dates, with different victims, and no individual should be able to avoid answering for more than one serious crime using a legal loophole. The amendment would create that impunity. For that reason, I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness and that she will be happy not to press that amendment.

Amendment 11C would require an affirmative resolution procedure to apply to any statutory instrument that designates an authority as a “designated authority”. Given that the framework and criteria for the issuing of a certificate are provided for in the Bill, we consider that the negative resolution procedure affords an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We have plainly set out what the designated authority will do and how they must do it. Which particular body exercises that function is not, in our view, a matter that needs to be subject to debate in both Houses. The use of the power to designate an authority is necessary to accommodate any changing circumstances, including alterations to the functions of law enforcement bodies in the UK, and we consider it appropriate that we can respond to this promptly. The application of the negative procedure is also, again, completely consistent with the procedure for designating an authority for the purposes of issuing a certificate in respect of a European arrest warrant under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.

I am sorry for my long-winded response to these several amendments. I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are happy not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I do not have many remarks to make on this and I could not think of a quixotic quote. However, I really like Shakespeare because he is connected with the borough I grew up in, so I will remind you of this quote

“haste is needful in this desperate case.”

Some of the points which have been made are very important and should be taken on board. What are we doing here? We support the legislation in principle, but we have asked for reasons why we are doing this and we have gone through some of the wording before.

I look forward in particular to the Minister’s response to Amendment 12 because when you look at the wording it seeks to take out, it is quite worrying that it is in there at all. It may well be that there is a perfectly understandable explanation and I will be able to get up in a moment and say, “I fully support what the Minister intends to do”, but as it reads now, I am worried about what we are passing here. Perhaps she will say that it is fine because it talks about further consequential provisions in the sub-paragraph above and the Government will do nothing. However, there is an issue about the powers we are giving to the Executive and our ability to scrutinise or change them at a later date. That point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, so I want this to be looked at.

Amendment 13 seeks to remove regulations about “saving” or “incidental” provision. What is that about? We could make all sorts of changes by saying that something is a saving. We could get rid of whole swathes of stuff, so what are we agreeing to? We do not want to find ourselves saying months or years ahead that we did not realise when we agreed to this that we were giving those powers to the Executive. I will leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response, but I may intervene at some point for further clarification.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for the points they have made and I hope to be able to allay any fears around what Amendments 12, 13 and 14 seek to address.

As noble Lords have said, paragraph 29(1) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make further provisions that are consequential on the amendments made by the Schedule to the Bill. This is a standard power which is commonplace in legislation and is naturally constrained. It can be used only to make provisions that are consequential and it is not a power to make substantive policy changes. Rather, it will allow the Government to make small, technical amendments for good housekeeping to ensure that that statute book is consistent and functions well.

As we implement the new arrest power, it is in everyone’s interests to ensure legal continuity for law enforcement partners and those subject to arrest for extradition purposes. While many of the amendments required to other enactments are made by Part 2 of the Schedule to the Bill, it is anticipated that further consequential amendments may be identified as part of the implementation process. That is why the standard power is taken to provide the flexibility to ensure that the new arrest power can operate smoothly and efficiently. Placing a timeframe such as 12 months on the use of the power would unnecessarily frustrate the aim. In any event, as noble Lords will know, the power cannot be used to amend future legislation.

As to the scope of the possible amendments, the Bill is narrowly focused. Its purpose is to provide a power of provisional arrest for specified category 2 territories for extradition purposes. I stress the point that it does not affect or relate to the subsequent extradition process. The purpose of the consequential power is to deal with the consequences of those changes to the statute book. As such, just as wider amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 fall outside the Bill’s ambit, so amendments to effect wider extradition policy would fall outwith the consequential amendments power. The power extends to provisions that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation. As I hope I have made clear, this is not unusual or exceptional. It is standard practice to take such a power to provide flexibility for smooth and efficient implementation.

Similarly, the power to make saving or incidental provision by regulations found at paragraph 29(3) of the Schedule is a standard power commonly given in legislation for the purposes of smoothing the introduction of a change to the statute book. Incidental provision would include only amendments that are necessary or expedient to make the Bill’s substantive provisions work. Saving provisions are required where it is necessary to preserve existing law following a change to legislation —for example, to ensure fairness or consistency in court proceedings in progress at the time of a change to legislation. As I have stated, these are standard clauses. Any amendment by regulations that amended, repealed or revoked primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of paragraph 29(5), as befitting a Henry VIII power of this type. I hope that I have allayed noble Lords’ fears about that.

As a final point to my noble friend Lord Inglewood, the power in this Act would not allow us simply to move countries from Part 1 to Part 2 of the Extradition Act, nor to substantively amend Part 1. Those are not consequential amendments. With those explanations, I hope that noble Lords will feel happy to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister very much for explaining that. I am reassured to a large extent by what she said. Would it be possible to give an example of one of those little technical things that would be changed so that we are clear what we are all talking about? If she cannot now, maybe she could write to us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very happy to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have laid Amendment 15 to reflect Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, which changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament”. This amendment is a technical consequential amendment. It follows the new practice of using the Welsh name when referring only to the Welsh legislature. I hope noble Lords will be able to join me in voting for this amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am very happy to support this amendment. While looking at it, I was thinking that Members of the Welsh Parliament are called Assembly Members. What will they be called in future? They are in a Parliament and are called AMs—will there be some consequential change there? Maybe someone could clarify that at some point.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will try to do that. It is a technical point to which I do not know the answer.

Historic Sexual Offences: Investigations

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly take on board that last point about restoring the reputation of Wiltshire Police. I guess that it is for that force to ensure that the cultures change over time. Three successive Home Secretaries have now said that they will not instigate an inquiry and that it is a matter for the police. The IOPC has already had an inquiry into Operation Midland. HMICFRS is now carrying out a lessons-learned review into Operation Midland, and that report is due in the next few weeks.

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness has just said that there have been three Home Secretaries who have not made an investigation into Operation Conifer, but, as the right reverend Prelate said, we are not going to move forward here. Why will a Home Secretary not order an investigation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, for the simple reason that the police are operationally independent of the Government; it is a matter for them. There are funds available should they wish to launch inquiries, but it has been the clear view of three successive Home Secretaries that an inquiry is not appropriate.

European Arrest Warrant, Europol and Eurojust

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The first thing to say is that the Norway-Iceland agreement might have taken 13 years but the initial agreement took very little time at all; it was the commencement that seemed to take so long. It did not take very long to get agreement on this. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation between the UK and Europol and Eurojust to facilitate multilateral law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. The agreement with Europol should go beyond existing precedent, given the scale and nature of co-operation between the UK and Europol. For example, the UK was the highest contributor of data to Europol for strategic, thematic and operational analysis in 2018.

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

My Lords, will the Minister set out for the House who she believes are the beneficiaries of this decision other than criminals seeking to evade justice? How will she ensure that fugitives in Europe will not just laugh at us for failing to bring them to justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the beneficiaries of this should be the people of the UK. It seeks to replicate many of the operational capabilities in the European arrest warrant, while containing safeguards.

Planned Deportation Flight to Jamaica

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in the other place to an Urgent Question earlier today. When will the Windrush lessons learned review be published? Why are there delays in getting this report to the Home Office? Can she tell the House what the Government’s position will be when the report is published if it comes to light that, as a consequence of recommendations in the report, individuals on the flight tomorrow, or on other deportation flights, include people in categories that would not be recommended for deportation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord will know, I cannot pre-empt what the report will say, nor would he expect me to. As to when it will be published, the lessons learned review was commissioned by the Government but we would not wish to interfere in the process and tell Wendy Williams when to hand it over to us. However, as I outlined in the Statement, when we get the report, there will be a full government response.

Facial Recognition Surveillance

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given to the Urgent Question in the other place today. The Government have promised to empower the police to safely use new technologies within a strict legal framework. The announcement of automated facial recognition has been made before such legislation has been introduced and seems to be on the basis of a court ruling that is being appealed.

Further, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires that intrusions, however justified, are in accordance with the law. With those points in mind, can the Minister confirm when the Government will introduce the necessary legislation, and can she further confirm that the technology will not be used until that legislation has been passed?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this was recently tested in court and the High Court found that the police were operating within the law, so we do not feel that there is any need for further legislation at this point. However, I understand that the decision is being appealed, so that is probably about as far as I can go today.

Asylum Claims: Child Trafficking

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 16th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the right reverend Prelate may know, independent child trafficking guardians are currently operational in a third of all local authorities in England and Wales, and we currently remain committed to the rollout nationally.

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

My Lords, what would a victim of child trafficking have to demonstrate to satisfy the Home Office that they are a victim?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Usually, a victim of child trafficking is an extremely traumatised individual; that should be evident. I am sure there are assessments of vulnerability. In particular, the circumstances in which a child arrived in the UK might indicate that they are a victim of child trafficking. It may also, however, be established through the course of their seeking asylum here that they are a victim of trafficking. It does not always come out initially.

Crime: Police Numbers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the relationship between the number of police officers and the level and types of crimes committed.

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

My Lords, many factors impact on crime levels. More reporting of hidden crimes, recording improvements and some genuine increases in offending have all contributed to recent increases in recorded crime. We also know that increases in fraud, cybercrime and high-harm offences have intensified pressure on police resources.

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

My Lords, the previous Prime Minister and the previous Home Secretary seemed to suggest that there was no link between the level of crime and the number of police officers, but the actions of the present Prime Minister and the present Home Secretary suggest that they agree with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that there is such a link. Who should I believe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I explained to the noble Lord, these things are multifactorial. The increased pressure on police, the increased demand on police, the changing nature of crime and certainly some of the issues we have seen in the last couple of years have placed unprecedented pressure on police. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, often mentions the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, as well as the resources and capabilities that we support them in having.

Visas

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 21st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I appreciate the point the noble Lord makes. He has made it before, particularly on the route from Ireland. There is a concession under the tier 5 route for creative workers and entertainers for non-EEA and non-visa nationals. That concession, as he knows, allows them to enter the UK without obtaining entry clearance. But he will also know that new guidance is now out for those multiple applications. Indeed, not only has the route through Ireland been temporarily clarified since February this year, but we plan to make secondary legislation changes to the Immigration (Control of Entry through the Republic of Ireland) Order 1972 so that non-EEA and non-visa nationals who hold a valid COS not only will receive deemed leave but will not have restrictions on paid entertainment.

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

My Lords, the Minister has heard a couple of examples of the problems that academics and visiting musicians are having getting visas to work and perform in the UK. What effect does she think these cases are having on our international reputation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I outlined the visa acceptance grant rates, which are extremely high— 98% for tier 2—and the speed at which they are granted. I think 97% are now granted within the 15-week service standard.

Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Not that I know of, but we should note that when something is rolled out, it is important that it be done properly, in the sense that it is ultimately effective. To me, piloting and rolling out further seems to be the best way of doing this. I do not think it is too slow, but I do think we need to get it right.

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

My Lords, as a Labour and Co-op peer and a member of the Co-op, I am delighted to support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which will bring the law in England and Wales up to the same standards that we enjoy in Northern Ireland and Scotland, giving victims 12 months’ support and assistance. The Co-operative Group has worked closely with the noble Lord on his Bill. However, it is certain to be lost in the Commons due to the usual suspects on the government Benches, who take great pleasure in wrecking Private Members’ Bills. Why will the Government not help to get this much-needed reform through to help victims of modern slavery, following the example of the Church, the Co-operative Group and others?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in response to the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, which was of course cross-party, the Home Office launched a public consultation. The proposals under consideration would require changes to primary legislation, and we at the Home Office intend subsequently to make any necessary legislative changes as soon as we can, with parliamentary time.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order, but I am a little confused. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the order states that in January 2019 an application was made to the Secretary of State for the deproscription of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—the LIFG. It also says:

“The Proscription Review Group (PRG), a cross-Government group … makes recommendations and provides advice … on the implementation of the proscription regime including the case for proscription and consideration of deproscription applications … The PRG”,


as the Minister has just said,

“has assessed that the group is now defunct and no longer exists”.

What is not clear to me, even after what the Minister has said, is who made the application for the deproscription.

We discussed the proscription of terrorist organisations at length during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill in December last year. We learned that very few organisations have applied to be deproscribed, not least because it is very expensive. In one case that was referred to during that debate, apparently it cost £300,000 to secure deproscription. Presumably in this case the application was not made by the LIFG, a defunct organisation that no longer exists.

During the debate on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, attempted to reinstate and put on a statutory basis an annual review of the activities of proscribed organisations—something that apparently had happened routinely until four or five years ago—and the deproscription of those lacking a statutory basis for continued listing. Have the Government adopted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, at least to the extent that they are now reviewing proscribed organisations to establish whether they meet the statutory requirement for proscription? If so, during that debate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also said that at least 14 of the 74 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, not including 14 Northern Ireland groups, are not concerned in terrorism and therefore do not meet the minimum statutory condition for proscription. If there has been a government review resulting in the proposed deproscription of this organisation, when will the other organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred be deproscribed? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has largely raised all the points that I was going to refer to, so I will not detain the House for long. However, I was surprised about the application and just want to ask about a couple of further points.

First, what happens if this group, which we are told is defunct and no longer exists, reappears? Secondly, are any frozen assets held in the UK at present and, if so, will it be possible for them to be unfrozen and for people to get their hands on them? I would be very interested in hearing the answers to those two points and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. With that, I will not detain the House further.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. To the best of my knowledge, who made the application for deproscription is not in the public domain. The law states that applications can be made by proscribed organisations or an individual affected by the group being proscribed.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about cost. The cost of an initial application is only the cost of making an application. I think that the noble Lord is referring to the cost of an appeal. He also talked about the annual review. It was not put in the final Act brought before Parliament, but the Home Secretary keeps consideration under regular review. I am sorry to say that we do not comment on which organisations are being considered for asset freezes.

Children: Criminal Exploitation

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report by The Children’s Society, Counting Lives: responding to children who are criminally exploited, published on 5 July.

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

My Lords, criminal exploitation associated with county lines drug dealing has a devastating impact on those affected. We must continue to work together to identify and safeguard the victims and potential victims of this exploitation as early as possible. We will carefully consider the findings from the Children’s Society’s report as we continue to strengthen our response to county lines.

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

My Lords, in January 2019 the National Crime Agency and the National County Lines Coordination Centre co-ordinated a series of drug raids which resulted in 600 arrests, with 400 vulnerable adults and 600 children being offered safeguarding advice, but only 40 referrals to the national referral mechanism. Does the Minister agree that we need to implement a national strategy for child criminal exploitation to ensure that statutory services across the UK can recognise the signs of exploitation and offer the support that children need?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The figures I have before me are slightly different to the noble Lord’s. I understand that they led to over 1,600 arrests and over 2,100 individuals safeguarded, but I absolutely agree with him; I do not think anyone would disagree that there needs to be a multiagency approach to this. As he will know, the public health approach consultation has only just closed. In terms of the NRM process, the Home Office is leading a review of first responders which considers the training provided and how to refer a victim to the NRM, and the support that is available through it. The final recommendations of that review will be published in due course.

Child Refugees

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Certainly, in terms of families who could welcome people here, we have the Gateway scheme, and the Mandate scheme more particularly, for people with family here. In addition, we have issued more than 26,000 family reunion visas in the past five years.

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

Have the Government satisfied themselves that they are doing everything possible to protect vulnerable unaccompanied children arriving at camps in Europe and, in particular—with our European partners—to protect them from traffickers, modern-day slavers, sexual abuse, rape and other horrific crimes that know no borders or boundaries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s question because it goes to the heart of what we are trying to do—to protect vulnerable children and to ensure, so far as possible, that they come to this country through recognised routes. I spoke to him last week and he will know that we are now consolidating some of those routes to allow one route for vulnerable children and adults to come here. As to our commitment to resettling 20,000 vulnerable people from the MENA region under the VPRS and VCRS, by 2020 we will have resettled 23,000 of them, which is over the commitment we originally intended.

Hate Crime: Homophobic and Misogynistic Attacks

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, crimes motivated by hatred are particularly abhorrent. The Government have asked the Law Commission to review the adequacy and parity of protection offered by the law relating to hate crime. This review covers existing protected characteristics, including sexual orientation, and whether other strands, including gender, should be added.

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

My Lords, it is appalling to think that if you are gay or a woman, getting on a bus or walking down a street puts you at risk of abuse and physical attack for no reason other than you being who you are. I know that the Minister will condemn these attacks. But will she also speak to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing to ensure that they are talking to the Met Commissioner, chief constables and police and crime commissioners in England and Wales so that there is no doubt that these criminal acts will not be tolerated in 2019, that firm action will always be taken and that, where necessary, the law will be strengthened?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that I join him in wholeheartedly condemning the attacks in London and Southampton. Perhaps the London one was the most surprising of all, given London’s diversity and its generally tolerant and liberal approach; it is being widely reported as both homophobic and misogynistic. There may be other factors but that is for the court to determine. The noble Lord will know that the hate crime action plan sets out our plans to tackle all forms of hate crime. We refreshed it last year; in addition, our VAWG refresh, which was issued in March, includes sexual harassment. We are committed to conducting a study of sexual harassment.

Illegal Seaborne Migration

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Every crossing attempted by migrants, often in unsuitable and very small boats, is life-threatening for those on board. These attempts not only represent a hazard to other vessels but threaten the safety of the Border Force, coastguard and lifeboat crews who come to their rescue. The Government are committed to preventing migrant crossings in small boats. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary declared a major incident in December last year, and our heightened response remains in place.

In January, the Home Secretary met his counterpart Monsieur Castaner and agreed a joint action plan to tackle seaborne arrivals. He will be speaking to him again later this week. The joint action plan builds on the extensive work we have undertaken in partnership with France over the past few years, including under the 2018 Sandhurst treaty. It demonstrates the strength and depth of our bilateral relationship and both countries’ enduring determination to secure our shared border and prevent illegal migration through France. Through measures such as increased surveillance and co-ordination of our joint response via the joint information centre, the plan enhances our robust border security.

The solution is not all about increased surveillance in the UK, but also about preventing vessels leaving France in the first place. We have recently delivered drones and other surveillance equipment to France, enabling its law enforcement officers to intercept and disrupt attempted crossings. We continue to look at a range of tactical options that work on both land and sea. Those attempting to cross should be aware that their efforts will be in vain. Since January, more than 30 people who arrived illegally in the UK in small boats have been returned to France and other member states under the Dublin regulation. We have many more in the pipeline for return.

Finally, we are tackling the organised crime gangs who are exploiting vulnerable and desperate individuals. Only yesterday, a French court sentenced two men to prison for helping migrants to make the treacherous journey across the channel. The summer months and settled weather will present us with further challenges, but we will continue to work co-operatively with France to secure our borders and seek to prevent further crossings taking place”.

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

My Lords, can the Minister set out for the House what further action the Government plan to take with our French partners to deal with the criminal gangs that are exploiting these vulnerable people? Of the people who arrive here and are picked up by the authorities having crossed the Channel, how many of them are making asylum applications and what is the timescale now for concluding those applications? Finally, what do the Government expect the commanding officers and crew of ships using this busy seaway to do on sighting small, unsuitable craft attempting to cross the Channel?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. Most of the people who cross the Channel do claim asylum and the vast majority of them are Iranian men. He asked what work the UK is doing with the French to address this problem further. I referred to the joint action plan in the Statement. In more detail, it includes: over £6 million, or €7 million, of investment in new security equipment; increased CCTV coverage of beaches and ports; air surveillance, shared intelligence and a mutual commitment to conduct returns as quickly as possible under international and domestic laws. Just over half of that investment will come from the £44.5 million already allocated under the Sandhurst treaty agreement on UK-France co-operation, signed by the PM and President Macron in January 2018. In addition, there is £3.2 million of new funding for equipment and measures to tackle illegal migration by small boats, such as CCTV, night goggles and number plate recognition capability, which I think noble Lords would agree will help the UK and France to crack down on illegal activity.

To answer a further question asked by the noble Lord on determining asylum claims, we try to do that within six months. He asked a final question—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

It was about what those on large vessels should do when they sight these boats.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The prime objective of the boats which find people in the English Channel is to save lives at sea. That is always the prime objective.

Emergency Services Network

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out what the NAO report says. I am not going to sugar-coat the cost and time overruns, but we can take some comfort from the fact that a new team is in place, and the additional costs should ultimately be recouped. But I take the point that a reset is needed, that the project needs to run to time and cost, and that that needs to be done as a priority.

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

My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House who is responsible for this shambles?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are a number of factors involved in what is not a satisfactory situation. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I am not going to pretend that it is a satisfactory situation. Some of the technological solutions and the infrastructure have run mainly according to plan, but there is now the testing phase, which is going to be done incrementally. That is probably the right way to do it, so that if any part of it is not running as planned, it can be changed. But there are a multitude of problems, for which a multitude of solutions are needed.

Freedom of Movement

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right: it is absolutely clear that we need an environment friendly to businesses both at home and abroad, and “abroad” will include the EU when we leave it. Our immigration system will be skills-based. We want the brightest and best to come to this country to work, study and live. That is why we consulted the MAC on our future system.

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

My Lords, have the Government done any work to quantify the economic and social disadvantage that citizens of the UK will suffer by losing the right to live, work and study anywhere in the European Union as a result of being a citizen of a member state, in comparison to any other arrangements that may be put in place in future?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has asked me a question that is a little out of the Home Office’s purview. Until a deal is done, it is very difficult to tell what the future economic landscape will look like, and in fact the best way to advantage the economy is to get a deal done.

Passports

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for returning the debate to some common sense. She is absolutely right and of course our standards are set in consultation with the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has raised an important point. Why does the Home Office not collect this information? Also, can the noble Baroness help me? I read somewhere that the European Union is going to change all of its passports to blue. Is that true?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would it not be a wonderful day if the Europeans followed our lead and changed EU passports to blue? I look forward to that. I think that the noble Lord is just having a bit of fun with me, but it is very difficult to gather the data establishing how many people are holders of passports from other countries. However, I shall look again into why that is so.

Freedom of Expression

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know where the specific incident that the noble Lord talked about took place. Was it in the UK? No? You only have to go outside the doors of this Palace of Westminster to hear that any view, as long as it does not incite hatred towards someone, is absolutely taken on board—I enjoy walking past people who either agree with my view or do not, and who regularly admire my handbag—and to know that freedom of speech is well upheld by this country and by this Parliament.

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

My Lords, wearing a pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit badge should not be a reason to be stopped, delayed or detained at a border entry point. These are difficult times and passions are running high, but can the Minister ensure that officials are briefed on ways to avoid these matters becoming incidents?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I assure the noble Lord that in the case of the individual concerned in the Question, we are undertaking some fact-finding meetings with the member of staff and the higher officer on duty at that time. I think that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be comforted by that. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, perhaps strayed into other events that have taken place around the Palace of Westminster. We all have the right to give our views on Brexit—and, my goodness, we have done that—but when that strays into some of the more aggressive behaviour that we have seen, it is absolutely unacceptable.

Police: Recruitment Criteria

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Both are important. Those with the skills required to go into the direct entry scheme are subject to very rigorous training and a rigorous selection process. The noble Lord is absolutely right that training thereafter, and experience in policing, are essential.

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

My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that requirements for degrees in many of the paths to become a police officer do not prevent good candidates with the required skills being appointed?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is absolutely right that good-quality candidates should be allowed to come forward. That is why there are a variety of options available to candidates. As I said to the noble Lord earlier, it is important that candidates do not necessarily need a degree to be able to go into the police force, but that they are educated and trained to degree level going forward, to make the best police officers.

Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord comes back to his Private Member’s Bill, in the sense that he is talking about the media. His Bill deals with media reporting before charge and after arrest. Again, I say to him that DCMS is minded to wait until HMICFRS has reviewed police guidance on media relations before considering whether further action should be taken.

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

My Lords does the noble Baroness agree that we should always remember the victims, those who are raped and abused; recognise that these crimes are underreported; and make every effort to ensure that victims come forward and the perpetrators are brought to justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very glad the noble Lord has asked that question. Quite often in these situations the victims can be overlooked, and thousands of accounts of sexual abuse have now been shared with the Truth Project, which noble Lords and others will have seen on the television. We must not overlook the victims. We must ensure that all the processes are in place in order that perpetrators will be brought to justice. Victims are, therefore, at the heart of what we do.

Refugees

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness highlights the complex arguments around permitting asylum seekers to work, which the Government are certainly listening to very carefully. But it is also important to distinguish between those who need protection and those who are actually seeking to work here, who can apply for a work visa under the Immigration Rules.

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

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the present arrangements, as highlighted in this report, can plunge the asylum seeker accepted as a refugee into destitution?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly accept that the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that measures and interventions are put in place during the 28-day period to ensure that the person who has been granted asylum gets the help they need in a timely fashion and that they do not have a gap in which benefits are not paid. But I certainly think there are all sorts of situations, including this, where people can be brought into destitution inadvertently.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, on moving this Motion, I take the opportunity to say a few words of thanks to those who have contributed to the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. I thank my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Howe for undertaking some of the heavy lifting in Committee and on Report. Among all the Bills that I have dealt with this has not been the easiest, so I thank them very much. I also thank my noble friend Lady Manzoor for acting as the Government Whip on the Bill, and, on the opposition Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Rosser, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—and my noble friend Lord Attlee for his well-drafted amendment on the storage of certain firearms.

I cannot, of course, omit the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for his constructive assistance in the drafting of the amendment on the kirpan. In fact, I thank all the Sikh organisations with which we have engaged during the Bill’s passage. I thank all noble Lords across the House who have contributed in various ways to the Bill. None of us could do it without officials from the Home Office, who have supported me and my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Howe throughout the its passage.

The Bill has taken some funny twists and turns but has not lost sight of our ultimate aim, which is to end the scourge of this terrible crime on our streets and in our communities. I am pleased to have been able to reach a position of broad consensus on all but two of the Bill’s provisions, namely the introduction of KCPOs and the delivery of bladed articles. We are, however, continuing to reflect on these issues in advance of the Bill going to and returning from the House of Commons. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for the way she has conducted the Bill through the House. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I appreciate the constructive way they have engaged with the House, as they always do. I also place on record my thanks to my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe for the help that they have given me, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I was grateful, too, for the contributions of many other noble Lords from around the House, particularly those of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Singh, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.

We are certainly sending the Bill back in a better state than that in which it arrived. I am not sure that it will quite achieve all the things that it wants to do, but I certainly support its aims. We have done a good job. I also thank the Bill team at the Home Office, who have always been very courteous and happy to engage with me and other colleagues. I also put on record my thanks to Ben Wood, who works in the Opposition office here in the House of Lords and has kept me armed with briefing notes, amendments and everything else.

Child Sexual Exploitation Victims

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question given in the other place earlier today. The victims of sexual abuse and exploitation have the pain of the trauma they have suffered with them every day of their lives. It cannot be right that the victims are forced to live with the consequence of the exploitation that they have suffered: that is a further injustice. Will the Minister set out the Government’s position in respect of Sammy’s law? That would appear to be our way forward.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can talk about Sammy Woodhouse. The noble Lord will know that she was discussed in the other place. Victoria Atkins met Sammy Woodhouse on 14 March 2018 to talk through her ideas and understand how government can best help her and other victims of exploitation. The Minister said that the Government would work with the police, the CPS and others to protect future victims of exploitation and ensure that we do not unnecessarily criminalise those who have been exploited. In respect of Sammy’s law, the Government are considering the recent court judgment on previous convictions of victims but I cannot comment further due to ongoing legal proceedings.

Children: Covert Human Intelligence Sources

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord and I have gone over this on a number of occasions; the situation reflects the emergence into adulthood of 16 and 17 year-olds. That said, where anybody undertakes covert human intelligence, there is always an independent assessment of various aspects of their personality, their willingness and their ability to undertake such a difficult task.

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

My Lords, I recall from our previous discussion on this issue that the young people involved are likely to be the children of people the authorities are interested in. That puts these children in a very dangerous situation. What measures are in place to ensure that children are protected and do not feel pressurised into undertaking this dangerous activity?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord brings forward an important point: someone recruited as a covert human intelligence source might be the child of someone who is already involved in criminal activity. Anybody under the age of 16 cannot be involved in anything to do with their parents.

Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, these matters were debated in Grand Committee on 12 March. I expressed then, as I do now, that I very much agree with the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Sub-Committee A. It expressed the concerns about the way this regulation has been brought forward. It is fair to say that it was quite damning of how the Government presented the regulations to both Houses of Parliament.

Recommendation after recommendation highlighted how inadequately information was presented to Members of both Houses. In Committee, I very much agreed with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I supported everything she said, except that if the measures came before the House, I would not vote to stop them coming into force. However, at the end of the day, we do not have a fatal Motion here. The regulations are badly drawn up, with little regard to the needs of either House. As I said, that point was made by the sub-committee but endorsed by everyone who spoke in Committee. I also concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.

I have a few other points to make. I do not intend to go into them in detail because I made a lot of them in Committee. I am very concerned that we could lose access to the European arrest warrant and may have to go back to relying on the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition. That is a retrograde step; the only people who would welcome it are criminals—no one else. I am also concerned about the loss of access to databases. In Committee, I also mentioned the issue of the Schengen information system and Prüm. I do not recall whether I got an answer to my questions. What will be the situation there? Can the Minister comment on Europol and Eurojust? Again, I want to hear more than just, “We are working on it”. These issues are important and we want to know where we stand.

The report is damning, as I said. I hope that the department will learn a lesson from it. I do not think that committees put forward such suggestions lightly. We want proper scrutiny. We want to ask questions and put everything together in one place but it has not worked and I hope that we will not see anything else like it in future. I will leave it there.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their points, many of which were made the other day in Committee. It is important to be clear from the outset that the regulations play no part in bringing about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, about which many comments were made. I just want to clear that up. Obviously, the consequences flowing from that include ceasing our ability to co-operate with EU member states through this suite of tools and measures.

As I said the other day, the instrument’s purpose is to make amendments to the UK’s domestic statute book, including retaining EU legislation to reflect the new situation. The changes we are making in the instrument are ones that we cannot and should not avoid in the event of a no-deal exit. The regulations do not contain significant policy choices. For that reason, as I have already said, we do not accept that the changes introduced by the instrument should be of concern to this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests in his amendment that,

“Her Majesty’s Government have provided insufficient information in relation to the statutory instrument’s policy objectives and intended implementation”.

That point was made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, at whose request the Government produced a second, revised Explanatory Memorandum in addition to both the original one and the impact assessment published alongside the instrument.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has been consistent on the committee’s comments; he made the same point today as he did the other day. I took it on board the other day and I do so again today. As we made clear in writing to the committee, the original, longer Explanatory Memorandum was provided in good faith to provide the committee and other users of it with a thorough explanation of each provision in the instrument. We anticipated that the level of detail provided would be helpful to anyone with an interest in a specific part of the instrument. However, we took on board the committee’s view that we had not struck the right balance and that the Explanatory Memorandum was too long, and therefore provided the shorter one. The committee confirmed in its report that it considers the revised Explanatory Memorandum to be “more accessible” and “more user-friendly”.

All these documents, both Explanatory Memorandums and the impact assessment, attempt to isolate and describe the practical effect of the regulations themselves—what difference it makes if we do or do not legislate as proposed in these regulations—rather than the wider impact of EU arrangements in this area falling away as a consequence of a no-deal exit. But in publications, debates and Select Committee hearings we have provided and continue to provide information to Parliament about those wider impacts. Overall, the making of this instrument will provide legal and operational certainty for the public sector, including law enforcement and criminal justice partners across the UK, such as the NCA and our police and prosecution services.

I will address policy areas. I reiterate that the regulations cover three subject areas: security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters currently underpinned by EU legislation; security-related EU regulatory systems for which the Home Office is responsible; and domestic legislation affecting the police and affecting investigatory powers made deficient by EU exit.

On security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out that the regulations address deficiencies in connection with EU measures with a justice and home affairs legal base. Reflecting their shared underlying legal base, these measures all relate in some way to law enforcement and security in their subject matter, and in many cases interact with each other at an operational level. For example, the Schengen Information System, which the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, referred to, circulates the European arrest warrant alerts. The regulatory regimes, while not having a JHA legal base, have a similar underlying purpose: to prevent, detect and prosecute criminal activity and to maintain security. Given that they are linked policy areas and that the changes being made are very similar across most parts of the instrument, we considered that combining them in a single instrument would assist scrutiny by providing as complete a picture as possible in one place. I accept the points made today by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the other day and today by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, then went on to talk about contingency planning. Our contingency arrangements in this area are largely outside the scope of the specific changes introduced by these regulations. However, they are clearly and properly a matter of great interest to Members of this House. They have undergone detailed scrutiny by the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Select Committee in this House and the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place. As the Government have made clear in both Houses, the continued safety and security of both UK and EU citizens remains our top priority. That is why we are preparing to move our co-operation with EU member states in a no-deal scenario from EU channels to alternative, non-EU mechanisms. Broadly speaking, this would mean more use of Interpol, the replacement for Europol—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about this—Council of Europe conventions and other forms of co-operation with European partners, such as bilateral channels. Our contingency plans are largely tried and tested mechanisms that we already use for co-operating with many non-EU countries. However, as we have made clear, they are not like-for-like replacements for EU tools and would result in a reduction of mutual capability in both the UK and the EU. For the most part, the legal framework for these contingency arrangements is already in place: the non-EU mechanisms we are moving to already exist and we already use them with other countries.

One thing that noble Lords brought up on contingency was extradition, which was brought up the other day. The regulations support implementation of the no-deal contingency in this area. They will ensure that in the event of a no-deal exit, we have the correct domestic legal underpinning to operate the no-deal contingency arrangements for extradition—the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition—with EU member states. To be clear, the amendments under the Extradition Act are not purely discretionary. Once we leave the EU and cease to be bound by the EAW regime, our rights and obligations towards EU member states under the 1957 convention will revive. Under international law, we will be under an obligation to be able to fulfil them and to equip ourselves to do so.

Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have just taken advice and apparently I cannot do that. Please ignore everything I have just said.

On a day when you have three statutory instruments, an Urgent Question, a Question and a speech to deliver to the LGBT conference, this is what happens. I apologise to noble Lords that I have got the right speeches but in the wrong order. I will sit down for a minute to make sure that I have got the right instrument.

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

Might I suggest a short adjournment?

Terrorist Attack: New Zealand

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, first, I condemn the terrorist attack in Christchurch, the attack in Utrecht and the attack yesterday in Surrey. All the victims of these incidents are in my thoughts and prayers. Terrorists can never be allowed to win; we utterly reject their message of hate, violence and killing. I also express my anger and disappointment at the actions of the social media companies following the terrorist attack in Christchurch—time and time again, they fail us. They are publishers and are responsible for the content on their platforms. Can the Minister confirm that the White Paper she referred to in her Statement will be the start of putting on the statute book the toughest laws possible in the UK to ensure that these companies understand their responsibilities and that there will be serious consequences where they fail to take them seriously?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I absolutely confirm to the noble Lord that the White Paper and its consequent legislation will tackle this. I have had numerous contacts with CSPs; on each occasion, I have made this point most strongly. They have heard submissions from the honourable Member Luciana Berger about some of the disgusting content about her that has been put online. I have only to look at Twitter to see some of the absolutely appalling comments that people make, particularly about Members of either your Lordships’ House or of the other place. To put such a video online is the final straw, so I totally agree with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and the sooner this legislation comes, the better.

Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the report of Sub-Committee A of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. If I were the Minister, sitting here reading this report and having to address Members, I would be pretty unhappy that the Government put forward these regulations in such a way that the sub-committee’s report was so damning. Normally in these reports, one or two little lines are highlighted in black with a few concerns, but in this case they are all over the place.

The sub-committee’s comments highlight its concern about how this issue is presented to Members. The first says:

“These draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.


It goes on:

“We were not persuaded that so wideranging an instrument, covering policy areas that are individually of significant concern to the House, can be justified. Effective scrutiny is inhibited by the wide range of issues included”.


Looking at the document, these issues are huge. I do not think that this is the way to present them to either House. I accept that the Government are up against it in terms of time—perhaps that is of their own making. However, we in this place and the other House have not exactly been busy; on many days, we have gone home quite early. On Thursdays now, we seem to be going home at 2 pm; we often used to sit until 7 pm. There has been plenty of time to discuss these things in more detail.

The list of concerns is unacceptable. The sub-committee, quite rightly, criticised the Government when they brought forward the regulations. I endorse its actions in pointing that out. It is not acceptable to bring them forward in this way. However, I accept that if we end up with no deal and crash out—I do not want to get into that situation—we must have functioning procedures in place. So, if the regulations are voted for on the Floor of the House, we will not oppose them.

We participate in several EU measures to enhance our security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation. They are vital in keeping us safe from people who do harm and commit criminal offences. We all support that. The Minister reminded us that the regulations seek to revoke or amend EU retained law that is directly applicable to our current domestic legislation. She said that the regulations would deal with live cases—as I think she referred to them—at the point of exit, and extradition.

Other noble Lords referred to the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition, which, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, would be used in lieu of the European arrest warrant. That is regrettable. The measures in the convention are far more limited than the European arrest warrant. Yes, the UK and the EU would allow extradition requests from other member states in lieu of the European arrest warrant, but Article 2(3) of the convention states:

“Any Contracting Party whose law does not allow extradition for certain of the offences referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may, in so far as it is concerned, exclude such offences from the application of this Convention”.


It is clear that the situation will be worse. The only people who will benefit are criminals; nobody else will. This is the criminal’s friend. It is a ridiculous situation and it is not the right thing to do, so we need further comments from the Minister on it.

The Government have made the case for the importance of the European arrest warrant. They have explained that more than 1,400 individuals have been arrested on European arrest warrants issued by the other 27 member states and that, in the same period, EU member states have arrested 183 individuals and brought them to the UK. The warrant is an important tool and it is regrettable that we will end up less safe as a consequence of these actions.

The Minister spoke about the loss of access to databases. We will lose access to a number of databases as a consequence of this measure, so it would be useful to have some comments on that. We are told that the impact of a no-deal exit on security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation with member states is not in the scope of the regulations, but the Government need to set out their plans. People are concerned about where we are and the consequences; if they are concerned about anything to do with leaving the European Union, it is matters of security. We need to understand fully what is at risk. We will be outside the Schengen information system and Prüm. Again, that is very regrettable, so it would be useful if the Minister could comment on it. We must have effective systems in place to deal with these matters.

I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on Europol and Eurojust. I hope that she will not say, “We’re still working on that”. If I get that response, I will remind her that it has been nearly three years since the referendum and we need to know where we will be on these important matters.

We do not oppose the regulations. I accept that they are narrow, but they have not been presented to this House and the other House well. The Government need to do much more to reassure us that, whatever happens, we will keep people safe. I believe that some of the measures here will make them less safe going forward.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I shall start with the final point from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which concerns one of our first considerations as we leave the European Union: keeping our people here safe. He hits the nail on the head. For that reason, I hope that down the other end they are voting for the Prime Minister’s deal.

We need to be clear about these instruments. Should the UK leave the EU without an agreement at the end of the month—the no-deal scenario—the UK’s access to these tools and measures would cease. We are absolutely clear about that. At the same time, the UK would cease to be bound by the security-related EU regulatory systems. This would occur as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU through the Article 50 notification, but not as a result of the provisions found in these instruments—I stress this yet again. It is important to be absolutely clear that the regulations play no part in bringing about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Rather the purpose of the instrument is to make amendments to the UK’s domestic statute book, including retained EU legislation, to reflect the new situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister made the point that these measures have been put together to assist scrutiny. No doubt she believes that but the scrutiny people do not; they think the opposite. This is not the first time that we have had reports like this—although this may be one of the worst ones. When will the Government realise that Parliament does not like the way they are laying instruments in front of us, and that they should do it a different way? Some of the instruments I have seen coming forward are like encyclopaedias. There should be a policy decision because they are not being received very well. If the Government want to have proper scrutiny. we need to do it a different way.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not dispute what the noble Lord says. I am purely trying to explain the logic behind the way that it has been laid out.

The Government then published a second Explanatory Memorandum because of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee writing to the Home Office, commenting on the sheer length of the original Explanatory Memorandum. As the Policing Minister outlined in his response to that committee, the detailed information in the original Explanatory Memorandum was supplied in good faith—the committee recognised this in its report—to provide the committee and other users of the Explanatory Memorandum with a thorough explanation of each provision in the instrument. One can conclude that we could not do right for doing wrong. Some people thought that there was too much information, others not enough. In the event, we provided a more concise Explanatory Memorandum on 11 February.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister—that is very helpful. I do not know what goes on in departments. Do I take it that Ministers sit round the table and say: “We got that one wrong. Both Houses are clearly very cross. When we have the next set of stuff, maybe we should try and do it a different way”? Does that ever take place? Can the Minister enlighten us?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Lord would probably accept that in this instance the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee coming to us saying it was far too long and complex, then us trying to do a more concise version was a learning point for us. We accepted the committee’s point. In that sense, we try to learn as we go along. I certainly do not want to come to Committee too many times and having to take the rap for Explanatory Memorandums that are too long, too short or incomplete.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have one final point. I will then leave it and move on. If we are to have more regulations, in the next few days or whenever, I hope the Government will take on point the concerns raised here and in the other place.

Shamima and Jarrah Begum

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 11th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the decision taken by the Home Secretary to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship was the wrong one. The route should have been for her to return to the UK and be fully investigated. It evidential tests were then met, she should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If the tests were not met, appropriate prevention order measures should have been put in place.

The death of an innocent baby is a tragedy. Can the Minister please tell the House how the Government ensure that the rights of children—innocent young children and babies—are properly taken into account when decisions regarding their parents’ citizenship are made? Will she tell the House, when they decide to strip a child’s parent of their citizenship, how leaving that child in a more dangerous and risky situation—effectively abandoned by their country—complies with Articles 2, 3, 6, 19, 22, 38, 39 and 41, in particular, of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Of course, the death of any child is an absolute tragedy. In the camps in Syria, two-thirds of all deaths are children under the age of five. The situation in northern Syria is absolutely dire, and I know the noble Lord will agree that any parent who takes a child to that region, despite all the advice to the contrary, puts not only themselves beyond help but their child too.

Prevent Strategy

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for his Question. I echo the words of my right honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place, who has agreed to engage across the House on the review and ideas for the terms of reference. As I said, the review will report by August 2020, but arrangements for how it will be carried out will be made by 12 August 2019. We absolutely recognise the importance of hearing community views. Now is the opportunity for any noble Lords or members of the community who are concerned or otherwise to feed into the review, and we will welcome them.

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

My Lords, the internet is a hugely powerful tool: it has been a force for good but it has also been used for crime and to draw people into terrorism. Will the Minister ensure proper cross-over of the Prevent review with the Government’s White Paper on internet safety?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: we cannot discuss what is happening in this area without talking about the online sphere. I entirely agree with him that the White Paper on internet harms has to include that important element.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Such a scheme would impose an additional burden. The noble Lord talks about other burdens; I am not denying that there will be burdens on various people from the introduction of whatever scheme comes in, but this would very much pass on that burden to local government.

As I understand it, the failures in online test purchases have lain at the point of sale.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I put this provision forward, but I am not stuck on this or any other particular scheme, and I hope I made that clear in my remarks. I am generally very grateful to the Minister for the way she met with the traders—they were very impressed with the interest she took.

All I want to do is to stop us putting on the statute book something which harms British business—nothing else. The Minister has confirmed that discussions are still going on, so will she allow me to bring the issue back at Third Reading? If so, I would be very happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot commit to bringing it back at Third Reading, but I know the noble Lord will bring it back at Third Reading. By then, I hope that I will have further information for him.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Just to clarify, is the Minister happy for me to bring it back at Third Reading? I do not want any disputes with the clerks afterwards about this situation.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think there will be any disputes with the clerks.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, in that case, that is all clear and correct. I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that John Lewis currently delivers table knives or any type of bladed products to residential premises. As it stands, John Lewis does not deliver knives; people have to pick them up or buy them in the shop.

I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about table knives. That is why this legislation is difficult. In many ways it will be for the courts to determine in what context the knife is being used. I am not denying what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

When this discussion is over I invite the Minister to read Hansard and to reflect on the debate—it is distressing. We are talking about table knives, steak knives and knives to shear sheep and so on when we have a serious problem on our hands in this country with knife crime. This Bill completely misses the point. People have been murdered over the weekend and it is frustrating that this legislation completely misses the point.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are not missing the point: we are trying to get a balance between people selling products which can be used for perfectly legitimate purposes and those seeking to abuse these products in order to do harm to people. One of the attacks at the weekend took place round the corner from me. I fully have in mind the danger that knives can cause but we are trying to get the balance right.

Knife Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 4th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question given by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place earlier today. I agree there is no single solution and there are no shortcuts. What is missing from the Statement is an unequivocal link to ensure that youth services and other provisions across government to support families and young people receive the attention they deserve. Nothing in this Statement gives me confidence in that respect, so can the Minister comment on that and set out how the Home Secretary will ensure we deal with this matter across government—as she says, completely across the piece—and provide me with some reassurance on this?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, because there is a disproportionate number of young people as both victims and perpetrators of knife crime. The young chap who was killed on Saturday night in my neighbourhood is just one example. I have talked about the £22 million early intervention youth fund to support communities on early intervention and prevention with young people. There will also be the £200 million youth endowment fund over 10 years, which the Home Secretary has announced and which will enhance that, along with a consultation on the new legal duty to underpin a public health approach to tackling serious violence. The notion that any one department or measure is the answer to this is not true at all, as the noble Lord will absolutely know. This issue is more complex and it transcends government departments. We all need to work together on it, but he is absolutely right to start with young people.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 1st March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Amendment 1, moved by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and supported by my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, seeks to provide the Church of England and the Church in Wales with the ability, if they choose to do so, to opt in to the Bill’s provisions when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Nothing in the amendment seeks to compel either Church to do anything if they decide they do not want to or they decide they want to take this step at some point in the future. That is the right thing to do, with the state making it possible if the two Churches want to do something. We should not stand in the way of the Church and any decisions it might make in the future.

My noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Collins of Highbury set out clearly why this amendment should be supported. I fully endorse all their remarks. It is a facilitating amendment and we should put no obstacle in the way so that this change can happen in future.

I have many friends who are gay and I have attended many civil partnerships and marriages. People who love each other wanting to make commitments to each other is something we should all support. The first ever civil partnership I attended was that of my noble friend Lord Cashman when he joined together with Paul. Of course, we were not noble then: it was just Paul and Michael, and Alicia and Roy. It was a lovely, wonderful day. I will never forget it and nor will Alicia. It was a wonderful time and Paul was a wonderful man.

I was brought up a Catholic in a Catholic household. I must admit that I am not a regular churchgoer, but I regard myself as a Catholic. My parents are from the Republic of Ireland, so I come from an Irish Catholic background. I have been hugely impressed with the Church of England in this House. I was always impressed by the Church and the work it did when I was a local councillor in Southwark. I always remember Reverend Shaw who ran St Paul’s, but I never met a Church of England bishop until I came into the House of Lords. I knew a few Catholic bishops but I had never met a Church of England bishop. I am hugely impressed by the work that the Bishops do in this House. They bring a breadth of experience and understanding that really helps our work.

I very much hear the right reverend Prelate’s comments. I am also impressed at how the Church of England has gone on a journey on a number of issues. In the end, things have moved remarkably quickly. I hope that discussions will take place in the Church at some point and that it can make these decisions, but I accept that that is a matter for the Church. I fully support the amendment and the intent behind it.

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

I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Collins of Highbury, who outlined the various challenges here. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, articulated, this amendment is in a way a message for the Church. He outlined the progress that the Church of England has made, while the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, articulated some of its lack of progress. If we were to sum it up, the message is one of leadership and determination. This will be a matter for the Church, but I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for his thoughtful explanation of the current situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, also talked about the support the Church has given to this agenda to try to move it forward. My noble friend Lord Elton talked about the message we of the pew can send to the synod in making progress in this area. But clearly, the Government have to resist the amendment. It is probably best for me to go through the Government’s position regarding what we can do.

The amendment’s aim is to require the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make changes to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act to allow the Church of England and the Church in Wales to opt in to the provisions of that Act, which allow them to solemnise the marriage of a same-sex couple, as noble Lords have said. It requires these regulations to be made through the affirmative procedure and to come into effect within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I accept the point that the noble Lord makes; perhaps we can chat about it outside the Chamber. I accept that this is fairly wide of the Bill. I accept that Irish is spoken in schools, which is why I do not understand why there is such a problem, personally. Anyway, I will leave it there with the other issues, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in what has been quite a wide-ranging debate, and in particular my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving the amendment. I am also grateful for the conversations I have been able to have with him in the past few days on the matter.

The Government are rightly very proud of their role in demanding and defending LGBT rights. We are proud to have introduced same-sex marriage in England and Wales, for which we have legislative competence, and that the Scottish Government followed that lead shortly afterwards. Of course we want Northern Ireland do likewise and legalise same-sex marriage. The Prime Minister shares this view and has said so on a number of occasions.

I commend my noble friend Lord Hayward for his determined commitment on this issue. I know that many people—and the list is clearly growing—in Northern Ireland and further afield greatly appreciate his efforts, as demonstrated by his recognition recently by PinkNews as its politician of the year. I also pay tribute to the many others who have campaigned and shared personal and very poignant stories in support of his amendment.

Same-sex marriage is a devolved matter, as noble Lords have said. The proper and best place for it to be addressed is in the Northern Ireland Assembly, by Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s top priority remains to restore the Executive and Assembly at Stormont; this should be the focus. There is a need to rebuild political dialogue and she continues to encourage the parties to come together to work towards restoring devolved government, including in a recent meeting with the five parties to progress this objective.

It is important that any legislation legalising same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland is afforded a level of consultation, debate and scrutiny, using the precedents of the UK and Scottish Governments. Legislation should be developed having taken into account the wide range of views on this issue in Northern Ireland, as well as the various legal requirements. My noble friend Lord Hayward knows that we do not think that this Bill is the right vehicle for extending same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland. We have concerns about the drafting of the amendment, in particular the nature of the duty it would place on the Government.

It is not clear that the amendment would allow for all the legislative changes needed to fully implement a same-sex marriage regime in Northern Ireland equivalent to those in England, Wales and Scotland. For example, the introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales necessitated the amendment of more than 50 Acts of Parliament. The Government have heard the growing calls for change, and much progress has been made since my noble friend Lord Hayward introduced his Private Member’s Bill in March last year. Parliamentarians have played an important part in continuing to raise the profile of this issue, and I hope that, despite the potential disappointment that some people will feel today, everyone will have listened to the debate and the growing support on all sides of the House.

I will add one very important final point. We support the principle of my noble friend’s amendment—that it is right for same-sex marriage to be extended to Northern Ireland by a restored Executive—and we recognise that the ongoing absence of devolved government is having an impact on addressing this issue. We would encourage a restored Executive to progress legislation on this issue as one of the first things that they do. On that note, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 1st March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I completely acknowledge that point. I am just trying to give the context of everything that has been discussed in the debate.

The rationale for naming an arrested person before charge should be authorised by a chief officer and the Crown Prosecution Service should be consulted. Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will know that in May 2018, the College of Policing updated this guidance to make clear that it also applies where allegations are made against deceased persons.

The Bill would replace this administrative system with a requirement for the chief constable to apply to a Crown Court judge for a direction that reporting restrictions be lifted. This risks adding potentially dangerous delay in fast-moving investigations as well as placing additional burdens on our courts.

It is not clear that this is necessary. On the contrary, the existing arrangements for the police seem to strike a sensible balance. To test whether these changes have had the desired effect, the previous Home Secretary asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to carry out a short, targeted review of police adherence to the guidance on media relations, looking in particular at pre-charge anonymity. The inspectorate is undertaking a scoping study this financial year to consider where inspection activity might best be focused.

I recognise, of course, that the guidance on the police releasing suspects’ names does not address the separate concern about the media publishing suspects’ names, which the media may find from other sources, but the media has its own framework for guiding its behaviour. Ofcom’s broadcasting code places detailed requirements on broadcasters to ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. Robust powers are available to enforce adherence to the code. Statutory sanctions include levelling a fine and, in serious cases, revoking a broadcaster’s licence to broadcast.

For the press, there now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system. The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A small number of publishers have joined Impress, while others, including the Financial Times and the Guardian, have chosen to stay outside either self-regulator with their own detailed self-regulatory arrangements.

IPSO’s editors’ code puts in place robust requirements of accuracy and privacy.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think I am correct in saying that IPSO does not meet the standards set by the regulator.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord may be correct but I will confirm that in writing.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the Minister is correct, but my point is that I do not see how it can be a robust regulator if it does not meet the standards set by the regulator.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. IPSO requires that any significant inaccuracy or misleading statement be corrected promptly and with due prominence—that is important—and, where appropriate, an apology published. If an individual is unhappy with their treatment by the press, the availability of a compulsory low-cost arbitration service from both IPSO and Impress, which can be used for privacy actions against member publications, can provide easier recourse to justice than going through the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, talked about the Cliff Richard case. Of course, following that, the BBC asked the Government to consider the merits of conducting the review I just talked about to see whether any further action is needed in this area.

I conclude by saying that the Government have considered the Bill carefully and are sympathetic to its aims. There are precedents for placing restrictions on the freedom of the press to report the identities of, for example, victims of sexual offences, but restricting press freedom is a serious matter and we are not yet persuaded that legislating in this instance would be a necessary or proportionate response to the perceived problem. It would certainly be premature to take action ahead of the HMICFRS review, which I hope will enhance our understanding of policing practice in this area. We recognise the importance of debating these issues and we will keep the position under review.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right about the maximum sentence, but alights on an important aspect of someone’s rehabilitation, which is not just about the custodial sentence—it is about all the other interventions that go with it, both while that person is in custody and upon release.

The other difficulty with the amendments is the damage that they do in undermining the steps we have taken in the Bill to ensure consistency, regarding the maximum penalty available to the courts when dealing with offences relating to the sale to a person under 18 of corrosive products on one hand, and of a knife or bladed article on the other. When the Bill was considered in Committee in the Commons, there was strong support from the Opposition for a consistent approach to be taken.

I am well aware of concerns about individual retail staff or delivery drivers being prosecuted, and the impact that would have on them. However, the experience from other age-restricted products is that in many cases it would be the company selling the product or arranging its delivery that would be prosecuted. There could be occasions when it might be a shop worker who was prosecuted, but it is more likely that it will be the company operating the store, because it will be responsible for ensuring that procedures and training are in place to avoid commission of the offence. Where it is the company that is prosecuted, the sentence is likely to be a fine rather than a custodial or community sentence; but if an individual is prosecuted, the full range of penalties should be available.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister mentions an interesting point, about the company being prosecuted, and then talked about the range of penalties. Would it be an individual, such as the chief executive, managing director or personnel director, who would be prosecuted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In precedence for these sorts of cases, it is quite often the company that is prosecuted, with a fine—of a range—imposed on it. Obviously, if an individual is prosecuted, the full range of penalties should be available.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

When we had the debate before, I think it was suggested by one of the Minister’s noble friends that when health and safety law changed and responsibility was brought to bear on company directors, all of a sudden health and safety improved dramatically in this country. If the company directors or chief executive were more liable, the training they gave to their staff might dramatically improve.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The prosecution may well fall on a director, because the director is seen to have fallen short in some of the processes to comply with the law. However, yes, it is usually the corporate body rather than the director, but I see the noble Lord’s point.

We have heard that there is evidence that short sentences are ineffectual regarding rehabilitation. The Justice Secretary and Prisons Minister are looking at the question of short sentences and the use of prison in the round. A number of noble Lords have raised that; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted the Justice Secretary in a speech on this very subject.

We have already been clear that custodial sentences should be seen as a last resort, and that offenders with complex needs—including female offenders—should be dealt with in the community wherever possible. However, we must ensure that sentencing matches the severity of a crime, and prison must always be available for the most serious offenders. I am concerned that we do not send out the wrong message that the use of corrosives as a weapon is somehow less serious than the use of knives.

Amendments 32 and 34 seek to strike out the provisions in respect of mandatory minimum sentences in Clauses 8 and 9. Again, the effect would be to treat carrying corrosive substances in a public place less seriously than carrying a knife. These clauses mirror existing knife legislation, and ensure that anyone aged 16 or over who is convicted of a second possession offence or a similar offence—such as an offence relating to a knife—will receive a custodial sentence unless the court determines that there are appropriate circumstances not to do so. The use of minimum custodial sentences will make it clear to individuals that we will not tolerate people carrying corrosives on our streets and other public places with the intention to harm or commit other crimes, such as robbery.

We are talking about serious offences here, where someone is carrying a corrosive substance which could result in someone being attacked and left with terrible injuries, as well as the fear that this can instil into communities. We should bear in mind that the requirement to impose the minimum sentence is not absolute; there is judicial discretion. The court must consider the circumstances of the case, and if there are relevant factors that would make it unjust to impose the minimum sentence, the court has the latitude not to do so.

I recognise that there is a wider debate to be had about our sentencing framework, but this Bill is not the place for it. We are dealing here with particular offences and seeking to ensure consistency between how the criminal law deals with the sale, delivery and possession of corrosive products and substances on one hand, and of knives and offensive weapons on the other. On that basis, I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. If not, I invite the House to agree that for these offences, short custodial sentences and minimum custodial sentences continue to have a place, and that noble Lords will accordingly reject the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, these amendments, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seek to allow the delivery of corrosive and bladed products to residential addresses where steps are taken to ensure that the recipient is over the age of 18. If we can get to a position where this is possible, I would be very happy to support these amendments. Getting the balance right between putting in place precautions to stop young people getting their hands on these products, and adequate offences, is something we should all support. If that can be done in a way that is not damaging to business, that is all the better.

I am, of course, very concerned about the situation regarding knife attacks in Sheffield, and we will come on to my amendments about that later. We had a very positive meeting earlier this week. I am happy to support these amendments if we can get that balance right. I still have an issue about putting restrictions on overseas companies as our jurisdiction ends here in the UK. If we can get a system whereby we ensure that British companies are not disadvantaged and, equally, have some restrictions, I will fully support that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining the rationale of these amendments, which would change the new offence of sending a corrosive or bladed product to residential premises or a locker so that no offence is committed if a product is delivered into the hands of a person over the age of 18. This would mean that sellers could continue to dispatch products to residential premises providing that they are sure that the products will be delivered to a person over 18. The amendments for corrosive products also amend the defence of having taken all reasonable precautions, to include that they believed that the products would be delivered to a person over 18 and they had either taken reasonable steps to establish the person’s age—for example, relevant age-verification documents such as a passport or driving licence had been provided—or it was clear that the person was not under the age of 18. It would also be a requirement for a delivery company acting on behalf of the seller to confirm they had checked the person was over 18 at the point of delivery. In effect, the amendments in this group say that if a seller meets the first of these requirements, they can go ahead and sell the items to residential premises.

The Government’s approach to the sale of corrosive products, bladed articles and products in relation to UK remote sellers is twofold. First, we want to drive an improvement in the age-verification and dispatch processes of remote sellers. We are doing this by saying that unless they meet certain minimum conditions, they will not be able to rely on the defence that they have taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence if they are prosecuted for the offence of selling a corrosive product or a bladed article to a person under 18. These conditions include that they have suitable age-verification systems in place at the point of sale, that they clearly label the items when they are dispatched and that they have arrangements in place to ensure that when finally delivered, the items are delivered into the hands of a person over the age of 18. Many of the requirements covered by the amendments in this group are already reflected in the Bill.

Secondly, we believe that in addition to stronger checks by remote sellers, the dispatch of corrosive and bladed products to a residential premise or locker should be banned and that instead, buyers will need to pick them up from a collection point. This will ensure that the items are not delivered to a person under 18. There are two reasons why the Government believe that, in addition to age checks at the point of sale, sellers should also be prohibited from sending the products to a home address. First, it will be possible for buyers to get round any age-verification systems at the point of sale in relation to remote sales, for example by using a borrowed credit card or using another person’s passport or driving licence. Until we are confident that online age-verification systems are robust, we do not want to depend on them entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a good point about aggravated offences—and of course, that can be explored through the call for evidence. As he will know, it is already an offence to abuse or attack someone who is serving the public. USDAW wanted something specifically related to shop workers, and that is one of the suggestions that could be taken forward—in fact, it may well be taken forward—to the call for evidence.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. There was a lot of support around the House for the issues that I am bringing forward, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. We can all agree that no one should be threatened or abused while doing their lawful business and earning a living. That is important. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked why we particularly want this now. It is because in the Bill we are putting burdens on shop workers, who risk going to prison if they do not enforce its provisions. That is why we have responded. We are giving them particular offences that they can commit, but we also want them to have further protection in relation to these very serious products.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his support, although it was qualified. I am sorry if I caused him concern; I never intended the sentence to be custodial, but when I looked at it I realised I would have to put that option down. If nothing else, that highlights the need to review how we impose custodial sentences on people. In many cases we need interventions, but we do not want to risk someone going to prison at that point, so I hope we can come back to that at a later stage.

I also thank the Minister for her very detailed response, and for the fruitful meeting that she had with USDAW representatives and myself recently. I think she accepted that they made their case very well, that they know what they are talking about in representing their members, and that they understand the world of retail.

It is important that we get this right. I accept the point that there will be a call for evidence. That will be a second call for me, because I am going to keep pursuing the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, about the rogue landlords database, and I am also pursuing the noble Baroness about the protection of shop workers, and asking when we are going to get legislation on that subject. These are two important matters, and I shall carry on with them, because we cannot let such things be forgotten. We need to ensure that people going about their lawful business and earning a living are protected. Unfortunately, many shop workers—we heard that it is 280 a day—get assaulted in the UK. That is utterly disgraceful, and I hope the evidence that comes in will support the need for legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made an important point about sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Council, and there may be something we can do that would not need legislation.

I am not going to test the opinion of the House. I am tempted to, but I have listened to the debate and decided, in view of the way the Minister has engaged with us, to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, knife crime prevention orders are an attempt by the Government to deal with the horror of knife crime. Hardly a week goes by without a report of a young life lost. We see parents on our television screens in the depths of unimaginable despair as they try to understand what has happened to their child. These are things that no one should have to experience: a child, a loved one, murdered. It is also clear that the perpetrators of these crimes destroy their own lives when they are caught and punished. We must ask ourselves: have we as a society failed these children and young people as well?

Teaching right from wrong starts in the home, of course, but other agencies also play their part as children go to school and interact with the world around them. The destruction of Sure Start by the Government was a huge mistake—it was destroyed at the altar of austerity. Services for young people have been devastated. There are no youth clubs, no youth workers in any great numbers. Where children are not in loving homes and no one is there to help them, who becomes their family? The risk is that it will be the drug dealer, the gangs, and the people who exploit and abuse them, who become their family. You are part of a gang; there are people who are in other gangs. You have your territory and they have theirs. I was horrified to learn recently that there are young people living in Camberwell, an area of Southwark where I went to school, who are too scared to cross Camberwell New Road and walk into Lambeth. I could not believe it but it is true: they have never been into the borough of Lambeth. That is another gang’s territory and if they go there they risk being stabbed and killed.

When we debated this in Grand Committee, I asked why COBRA has not been convened to deal with this national emergency. If there is a flood, or other emergency, it is convened, so why not to stop this appalling loss of life and destruction of young lives and families? Why not try to deal with this as a national emergency? You could get the police, the Local Government Association, the Home Office and every other relevant agency around the table to look at solutions to these tragic, devastating incidents. I do not think it is over the top to stop young people losing their lives.

I accept that there is support for these orders. I think I am correct in saying that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police supports them, as does the Mayor of London. However, concerns have also been raised about the criminalising of children. That concern has been expressed tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and other noble Lords. If these orders are to come into force, we need a proper pilot scheme, with proper evaluation, and then, having considered the report, a vote in both Houses of Parliament on whether to either roll them out fully or not continue with them. This is the subject of Amendment 55 in my name. Amendment 63, which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for supporting, sets out the report to be laid before Parliament before these come into effect.

There are legitimate concerns about the way this proposal has been introduced so late in the day, the lack of consultations with relevant organisations and the lack of scrutiny in the other place where there was none at all because it was introduced after the Bill had left that House. Although I believe we do scrutiny better in this House, the elected House should have had its opportunity and the fact that it has not is regrettable. Getting a series of Lords amendments to debate in the other place is not the same as a Bill Committee, with evidence being taken and the other place going through its proper parliamentary procedures. I think this proposal deserves that.

A number of key points have been raised by noble Lords around the House. The Minister needs to respond carefully before we decide whether to vote on these matters.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his point about responding carefully—I certainly shall, because this is a very serious issue.

Before I respond to the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, and other points raised in the debate, I want to emphasise again that the purpose of these orders is not to punish those who have been carrying knives but to divert them away from that behaviour and to put in place measures that will stop them being drawn into more serious violent offending. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, quoted my honourable friend Vicky Atkins, who said that they are there to provide that wraparound care. That is precisely their intention—not to draw children into criminality. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that a public health approach is needed, and I absolutely agree with him. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary precisely outlined his intention to pursue a public health approach to this issue.

The other important thing to note about these orders is that they should not be seen in isolation, and they will not in and of themselves provide all the answers. They need to be seen in the context of the comprehensive programme of action set out in our Serious Violence Strategy, which we published last year.

We must try and stop the journey that leads young people from carrying a knife for self-protection to serious violence. We should not focus on picking up the pieces but do all we can to stop those lives being broken in the first place. I am sure noble Lords will agree that prosecution for young children is not always the most appropriate response, and we do not want them drawn into the criminal justice system if we can possibly help it. KCPOs will enable the police and others to address the underlying issues and steer young people away from knife crime through positive interventions.

The amendments contain important safeguards to ensure that KCPOs are not used inappropriately against young people under the age of 18. In particular, the amendments require the police to consult the relevant youth offending team before an order is made and, once made, an order must be reviewed by the courts after 12 months. We fully expect that the courts will provide for more regular reviews where a KCPO is issued to a person under the age of 18. But we remain of the view that the breach of an order should be a criminal offence if these orders are to be effective. This will mean that those on orders understand how important it is to comply with the restrictions or requirements imposed by the court.

I turn now to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. These amendments tie into government Amendment 52 which provides for, and indeed mandates, the piloting of KCPOs. That these orders should be the subject of a pilot before they are rolled out nationally is clearly a sensible approach, although I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, who would just like to see them rolled out. But these are new orders and it is important that we get them right. Piloting will mean that the police can try out the orders in a few areas, and that they can build experience and learn lessons from operating them for an initial period before they are made available to other police forces. I would expect the pilot areas to include one or more London boroughs, but they might also include other cities with high knife crime. By their nature, the pilot areas will be limited and I hope that assurance deals with Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

Amendment 52 further requires a report to be laid before Parliament on the outcome of the pilot. This will allow Parliament to consider whether these orders are effective and whether they are likely to deliver the intended benefits. It is important that this report is as comprehensive as possible and I am sure that it will include at least some of the information specified in Amendments 57 and 63. By its nature, the report required by Amendment 52 will be a one-off, but I fully expect that once rolled out, KCPOs will be the subject of ongoing scrutiny. There are existing mechanisms for this, such as parliamentary Questions and debates, an inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee and the normal process of post-legislative review. I am therefore not persuaded that the new orders should be subject to an annual reporting requirement, as set out in Amendment 63.

Amendment 55 would require the national rollout of KCPOs to be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I think it is the intention of Amendment 107 to require that regulations provided for the pilots should also be subject to prior parliamentary approval. Again, I am not persuaded of the case for this. The government amendments adopt the standard approach of providing for KCPO provisions, including the pilots, to be brought into force by regulations made by the Home Secretary. In the usual way, such regulations are not subject to parliamentary procedure and I see no reason to adopt a different approach here. Once Parliament has approved the principle of the provisions by enacting them, commencement is then properly a matter for the Executive.

Amendment 52 enables the piloting of the provisions for one or more specified purposes as well as in one or more specified areas. Our intention is to have area-based pilots rather than purpose-based pilots, but we might need some combination of the two. As I have said, our intention is to pilot these provisions principally in part of the Metropolitan Police area, but potentially also in one or two other police force areas. In doing so, it might be necessary to commence certain provisions more widely.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about the situation where an application on conviction is made in the pilot area, but the subject of the order then moves to another part of the country. To cater for such circumstances, it might be necessary to give all courts in England and Wales jurisdiction to vary or discharge, but not to make, an order.

Turning to other issues raised in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about a consultation that is going to be done as part of the pilot. He also asked about someone who is not guilty of a crime but is given a KCPO. KCPOs are available on application by the police where they have evidence that the individual has carried a knife on two occasions in the preceding two years. If an individual is acquitted but there is evidence that they have carried a knife, an application can be made. It will be for the magistrate or youth court to determine whether the test is met and whether a KCPO is necessary to prevent knife offending or to protect the public.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked how many police forces wanted KCPOs and how many do not, which is a reasonable question. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents all 43 police forces in England and Wales, supports KCPOs. In addition, Assistant Commissioner Duncan Ball, of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said he welcomed the new powers announced by the Home Office, and the APCC chair likewise.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked why we have not given a search power. We did not consider the power of stop and search without reasonable grounds necessary because there are existing powers to stop and search individuals where there are reasonable grounds to suspect them of carrying a knife. We think it appropriate for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 protection to continue to apply to the subjects of these orders.

Citizenship Status

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question asked in the other place today. I agree that there must be consequences for those who back and commit acts of terrorism. Where individuals are British citizens suspected of committing offences, particularly if they were born in the United Kingdom, it seems to me that we have a responsibility: to question them; to investigate their actions; where the evidential tests are met, to put them on trial; and, where a jury convicts, to punish them in accordance with the law.

I am sure that the Minister will tell me that the actions of the Government to deprive someone of their nationality have been done in a way that does not breach Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How will this assist in bringing someone who has committed serious crimes to justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can confirm to the noble Lord that these decisions are compatible. All those deprived of citizenship have been deprived on the basis that such an action was compatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. On the point about bringing someone back and bringing them to justice, if someone is in Syria, we do not have consular support there, and one would question how we could do that. There is no infrastructure in place that makes it possible to go into Syria. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, he does not want to put Foreign Office or Home Office officials’ lives, or anyone’s lives, in danger by asking them to go out to Syria.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the whole construction of the scheme was designed to be as simple and unbureaucratic as possible. To date we have had 100,000 applications in total. As regards the plethora of evidence that people need to supply, in fact they need to supply only three pieces of evidence: first, their identity, secondly their residency and thirdly the absence of criminal convictions.

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

My Lords, the scrapping of the fee was very welcome news when it was announced by the Prime Minister. A number of the 100,000 people who have so far applied will have paid a fee. Can the Minister tell the House how many of them have so far been reimbursed, as the Prime Minister promised?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that nobody has to pay a fee any longer. However, while the system for returning the fee is in train, people are continuing to pay the fee and will have it reimbursed—although that does not seem to have deterred people from applying for the settlement scheme.

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Is the Minister saying that we tried to get the United States to make an e-gate change, that we did not bother or that we do not intend to do so? It would be nice to know. The United States is a great country, and I have been there many times, but it is not the easiest place to arrive in and you do not get the friendliest welcome there. It would be nice to think that, as we have been so accommodating here, that could be reciprocated.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Indeed. As I said, going into the US is an entirely different experience from going to Manchester Airport. I imagine that conversations have gone on but, rather than guessing the answer, I will ask whether we have information on this.

The noble Baroness said that if these countries are lower-risk, by inference others are not. It is not a question of either/or, but we have specifically looked at countries that are low-risk in all sorts of areas, some of which I clearly cannot discuss publicly. She also asked about the impact assessment. We have said that there is no impact, but there might even be a positive impact if people’s travel through the e-gates is easier. Passengers will still go through the same procedures, but they will be able to use the e-gates.

Zimbabwe: Asylum Seekers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

My Lords, the UK continues to call for the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law and human rights and promote free and fair elections, under the protection of the 2013 constitution and international human rights law. The Home Office seeks to return only those whose asylum claim has been unsuccessful. They are, by definition, not at risk on return. All protection claims from Zimbabwean nationals are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the Government themselves have expressed serious concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe, as have Amnesty International and other NGOs and charities. There are reports of oppression of activists and allegations of beatings, rapes and killings. In light of this, how have the Government deemed it safe to return asylum seekers to that country?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that the Government have expressed serious concerns and we continue to call for the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law and human rights and promote free and fair elections under that protection of the constitution and international human rights law. I reiterate that when we return somebody to their country of origin, we seek to do so only when we and the courts have considered it safe.

Migrant Crossings: Naval Assets

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the nature of the event was such that the two cutters to which the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, referred were undergoing maintenance at the time. Yes, there has been a temporary deployment of a Navy ship. It is not cheap—I agree with my noble friend on that—but the two cutters will soon be back in action.

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

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Home Secretary’s decision has not left us vulnerable elsewhere in the world? What is being done to break up the operations of these criminals and catch the people smugglers, whose reckless actions are putting people’s lives at risk?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, an awful lot of work is going on to stop the movement of people across the water—recently it has been in the channel, where the waters are very dangerous indeed. The noble Lord might like to know that as recently as the last couple of weeks, the Home Secretary met Minister Castaner to discuss bilateral co-operation on maintaining our waters and keeping people safe when they make those terrible journeys across the channel.

Deportation: Jamaica

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have not misled the House, nor has the Home Secretary broken the law. I thought I had made clear in my original Answer that the original decision to remove an individual is not incorrect, but there may be factors that need to be resolved, such as fresh asylum claims and other reasons why a fresh appeal might be lodged, which might mean that someone is not deported but might ultimately be deported. Therefore, neither is true.

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

My Lords, while I accept that deportation must remain an option for the Government, some of the decisions to deport people that I have seen reported look extremely harsh. How can we be confident that the Home Office is being just in its application of the deportation policy generally?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have to say that it was under a Labour Government that the UK Borders Act 2007 was brought in. A deportation order must be made in respect of a foreign criminal sentenced to a period of more than 12 months, and we will not resile from that—I am sure the noble Lord would not expect us to do so. This was what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was referring to when he made his comment yesterday about not wanting to break the law.

Westminster: Security

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the police and everybody else who protects us and the staff of the House. I know that she agrees with me that Members of both Houses, their staff, other officials and members of the public have the right to come in and out of Parliament free from abuse, harassment or intimidation—along with the right of people to protest peacefully. Will the Minister agree to keep the situation under urgent review with the relevant authorities and report back to Parliament on any measure deemed necessary to protect these important freedoms?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord raises a really important point about the right to protest. I think I am known by name by some of our friends standing across the road, voicing their support for—or against—Brexit. There are updates every day about the threat to this estate and the vicinity, and I am certainly happy to update noble Lords about any emerging threats.

Windrush Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, reading the coverage of the Willow Sims case highlighted for me why people are worried about the ability of the Home Office to deal with these matters correctly. Can the Minister tell the House which Minister at the Home Office is responsible for the oversight of Windrush matters? How does that oversight take place? Is it a regular meeting with officials, the receipt of written reports or both—or some other mechanism? How is it that they have failed so badly in this case to exercise their duties properly and to avoid cases such as Willow Sims being treated so badly, as we have heard today?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we do not usually talk about individual cases but, of course, this case was brought up earlier in another place with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He said earlier that the letter was received only at the end of last week. It is now Tuesday. He has said that he will deal with it as a priority.

I think that the Windrush issue shames all Governments of the last 40 years or so. The Home Secretary has endeavoured in every way to make right the wrongs, as he said, and the failures of successive Governments. Not only are the Windrush task force and Windrush scheme in place, the exceptional circumstances scheme and the compensation scheme—the details of which will be released very shortly—are also in place. We cannot rewrite history, but we can make right the wrongs suffered by these people over generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Certainly, the Windrush task force has stood ready to help anyone who has been here since before 1988 and would like to regularise their status. It has not precluded people from member states of the European Union, and that would include older people.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I asked the Minister earlier about the process of oversight by Ministers. Can she explain that to us? Is it the Home Secretary or a group of Ministers? Can we have their names? What is the process? Clearly, if things are going wrong—or not going wrong—we need to make sure that Ministers are in charge of the process.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord did ask me that and I apologise for not answering at the time. As he and the House will have seen, the Home Secretary took absolute ownership of this issue right from the start, but I am sure that he liaises with other Ministers such as the Immigration Minister.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 31st January 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question taken in the other place yesterday. The citizens of Northern Ireland deserve the same rights enjoyed by everyone else in the United Kingdom, but, today, they do not benefit from legislation on coercive control or stalking, and the controversy over the legality of abortion carries on. This is not right; it is unfair and it is unjust.

Can the Minister explain to the House why, in the absence of a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland, the Government are not proposing to extend the law as outlined in the draft Domestic Abuse Bill to Northern Ireland? Will she comment on suggestions that it is a device to prevent the importantly won freedoms and protections that I referred to earlier being debated and considered in Northern Ireland and extended there as part of the Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will know that this is a devolved matter. Therefore, in order to for it be extended to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive would have to request it through a legislative consent Motion. We know that this is a sensitive matter. We do not want to impose anything on Northern Ireland that is not already provided for. We respect the devolved process in Northern Ireland, which is why we have made the decision that we have. It has been a long-standing process in this area of law.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is right. I am very grateful to him because now I do not have to explain it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I probably forgot to ask the Minister to meet a delegation of Sheffield MPs and businesses concerned before Report. I am sure she will.

There have been some really interesting figures in this debate. We have 424 million knives in circulation and 71 prosecutions of companies selling knives online incorrectly. If the Bill goes ahead, we will ban businesses operating in the UK selling knives online, but if they are based in France, Germany or the United States, it will be fine—off you go, no problem at all. That is some of the nonsense that we have here.

I respect the Minister very much, but I was disappointed by her response. I do not believe she has made the case for this. As other noble Lords have said, we are not convinced that this part of the Bill will do what it seeks to achieve. If that is the case, I would be very happy if it were not in the Bill at all. I moved this amendment because the industry is keen to avoid this ban and to have something else in place, and it has been working with Sheffield MPs on this. This amendment was put forward in the Commons and I have put it forward again today. This is not a scheme we have dreamed up.

These businesses sell niche products that are not available in most shops. If you go into a big shop, the knives in them are likely to have been made in China and elsewhere. These are businesses whose products have not been bought by high street retailers and which now survive by selling their products online. We are now going to make that harder for them without any particular evidence that it is causing problems. If you are going to go out and commit crime with a knife, where would you go? I would go to my knife drawer at home—I have a load of knives in there. That is what people would do. I do not believe that people are buying these knives online to commit crimes. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, they would be creating an evidence trail if they are then hauled up. For me, that is a problem.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I intervene on that point. He is right that, if you want to commit knife crime, you could go to your kitchen drawer and probably get a fairly effective weapon out of it. But that is not the nub of this legislation or of what we are trying to achieve. There are a number of interventions we are trying to make. I think I explained right at the outset when I introduced the Bill that no one intervention is going to solve the problem in and of itself. It is the range of measures that we have in place, including this legislation, that we hope will reduce what has become a scourge in society which is blighting the lives of young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The challenge is to get to a situation where children do not feel they need to carry knives for their protection or in order to attack others.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank my noble friend for that point, although I am not sure that I agree with him.

As I was saying, I do not believe the Government have made their case on this. We have seen 71 prosecutions and the evidence here. There are issues with knives and we all want to see knife crime reduced. This is the classic case of the Government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The Minister nodded to say that she would be happy to meet the Sheffield MPs and knife manufacturers. This is about the high-end, niche manufacturers who do not, or very rarely, sell their products in UK stores any more but almost wholly online. We will potentially damage their businesses but, at the same time, allow firms abroad to sell here with no restrictions whatever. That is regrettable.

I will leave it there for now. I will bring this issue back on Report—I guarantee that—but before then we can have that meeting and try to persuade the Government to look at this again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the Minister referred to premises that are registered for business purposes. That could be a home, could it not? If I work from home, knives could be delivered to my home.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right that a house could be registered for business purposes because it could be a business. I think we went through that on Monday. Clause 20 creates an offence relating to overseas sales, with the focus on ensuring that the delivery company does not deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person under the age of 18. I think that was all I was going to say on the subject and the amendments. I know that the foreign company versus the UK company issue will come back again and again, but I hope the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On that point, this is very anti-British business for no obvious reason or benefit for anybody concerned. If I were a German company or a French company, I would be delighted with this legislation.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will know that the last thing this Government want to do is to make things difficult for British companies, but we want to clamp down on some of the terrible effects of knife crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is good. These would not fall within the definition in the Bill as they do not generally have a blade. It is our intention that the definition of “bladed product” excludes those articles with a blade that are unlikely to cause serious injury if used as a weapon. They might include cutlery, fans and lawnmowers—which he mentioned—among other things. We believe that it is unlikely that such items will be procured by persons under 18 to be used as weapons. We also want to exclude articles that can cause serious injury only other than by cutting, for instance when used as a blunt object. Ultimately, it will up to the courts to determine whether an item is or has a blade and is capable of causing serious injury by way of cutting the skin. However, we will issue guidance in consultation with the police and business to provide further clarity on this and other provisions in the Bill.

Perhaps I might add that Amendment 46 highlights the risk of including an indicative list of examples in legislation, which brings complications of its own. For example, one might ask why the list includes screwdrivers but not chisels, or lawn mowers but not hedging shears and so forth. It is better, I suggest, to leave it to the police, prosecutors and the courts, supported by the guidance to which I have referred, to determine relevance in the circumstances of each situation.

This leads me to Amendments 44, 47, 55 and 56, which would change the types of articles to which Clause 20 applies from “bladed articles” to “bladed products”. My noble friend Lord Lucas has rightly asked why, in Clause 20, the term “bladed articles” is used rather than “bladed products”. A bladed product is defined in Clause 19 as,

“an article which … is or has a blade, and … is capable of causing a serious injury to a person which involves cutting that person’s skin”.

“Bladed article” is defined by Clause 20(11), in the case of England and Wales, as an article,

“to which section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies”.

My noble friend referred to this.

Section 141A applies to: any knife, except a folding pocket knife with a blade of three inches or less; any knife blade; any razor blade, except those permanently enclosed in cartridges; any axe; and any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed and which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person. “Bladed article” therefore captures a wide range of articles with a blade from kitchen knives to cutlery knives, scissors, and so on. This is the language used in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to the sales of knives and possession offences. “Bladed product” refers to a smaller set of items with a blade: those which can cause serious injury by cutting the skin, as defined in Clause 19. The effect of Amendments 44, 47, 55 and 56 would therefore be that the range of articles to which Clause 20 applies would be smaller than is currently the case in the Bill.

I hope that my noble friend is reassured by the provisions in Clauses 17 to 20. If a bladed article is delivered on behalf of a seller based abroad, the delivery company has the responsibility to ensure that the item is not handed over to a person aged under 18, whether the seller uses a marketplace platform or sells direct, or whether the item is delivered to a private address or a collection point. As I said earlier, we cannot enforce legislation against a seller who is based abroad but, in this instance, we have the ability to place the onus on the person who delivers the merchandise here to ensure that they do not deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person aged under 18.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the business impact. I concur with him that we should be concerned about the impact on British businesses. We have published an impact assessment alongside the Bill, which can be found on the Bill’s page on GOV.UK.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

So would this not have gone to the Better Regulation Executive to look at?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In terms of better regulation, I do not think that it has but I will double-check before Report. It probably has not.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the position in other countries and the approach we have taken. Of course we always learn from other jurisdictions, and I hope that they learn from us, but we must legislate as we consider it appropriate to address the position as we find it in this country. Regarding the problems underlying drug addiction, we will come on to that when we reach Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who I do not think is in her place at this point.

I want to make one final point about articles with a blade or point: we do not want to capture items such as screwdrivers and crochet needles because they are not usually used for harm—that is not to say they are not used for harm, but not usually. Hence we are referring to “blade” and not “sharp point”. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Brexit: Security

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not necessarily agree with the second statement, but one thing I can say to the noble Lord is that the way to avoid no deal is for the House of Commons, which is currently deliberating on it, to agree to a deal.

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

Can the Minister tell the House of any Brexit dividend on leaving the EU in relation to security matters?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very constructive point—

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th January 2019 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that we are in the hands of sellers and delivery drivers, who have quite a lot of responsibility. If they get this wrong, they could be convicted, go to prison and have a criminal record. I am not against the Bill—in general I support it—but it is reasonable for it to set out what people need to do to protect themselves. One way of going forward may be a police guidance scheme. Another would be requiring the delivery driver to take photographic evidence. This would be a very good thing to do, because it is important to protect the people who are doing this work. People do make unintentional mistakes. They need to know that the person at the door is the right age and can hand over documents as evidence, or that they have abided by a police-approved scheme to which their company has signed up. These amendments go a long way to ensure protection for the seller, as well as making sure that the items are handed to the right people who are entitled to buy them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining these amendments, which deal with the evidence required to satisfy the defence if a seller is charged with selling or delivering a corrosive product to someone who is under the age of 18. As regards Amendment 3 to Clause 1, I understand my noble friend’s intention but I am doubtful that it is necessary or appropriate to require the police to certify a seller’s processes as adequate. There are already well-established and widely recognised age-restricted policies in place for retailers and sellers through Challenge 21 and Challenge 25. These policies are used day in and day out by retailers to deal with situations where an individual may appear to be under 18, particularly in relation to the sale of alcohol or tobacco. I have concerns about the value of asking the police to certify a seller’s processes and about the burden this would place on police forces. I am also concerned about whether this approach would undermine these established policies. Arguably this amendment would necessitate the police certifying the specific age-restriction policies of every individual seller of a corrosive product, whether a high-street store or an online marketplace. This not a valuable use of police time when we want them to be focused on preventing and tackling violence in our communities.

In any event, I am not persuaded that the police would be the appropriate agency to discharge this function. We must not forget the important role that trading standards plays and its expertise in this area. That said, I would have the same concerns about the resource implications for local authorities if they, rather than the police, were to be made responsible for certifying the systems put in place by all retailers of corrosive substances caught by the Bill.

The defence we have put in place for the Clause 1 offence is similar to that for the sale of knives to under-18s, and it seems right to have a seller prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence of selling to an under-18. Similar considerations apply to Amendment 13, which would again require the police to certify as adequate a seller’s system in preventing, in this case, the remote sale of a corrosive product to someone under 18. We have not specified an age-verification system in the legislation as there are various types of systems available and, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, pointed out, the technology behind such systems is continuing to develop at a fast pace. As a result, we did not want to prescribe a specific method or set a minimum standard for what these systems need to do, first, because we need to ensure that we future-proof the legislation, and secondly, because it is for sellers to determine the most appropriate system for their businesses to be able to demonstrate that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to prevent the sale of a corrosive product to an under-18.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I see the point the Minister is making. She referred to various age-verification systems. I do not know whether we are going to have any guidance from the Government when this Bill becomes law. I want to ensure that these products are not sold to young people, but equally I want a system whereby I am confident that the person selling these items has had to reach quite a high bar to get this wrong so I am more confident that they have sold them deliberately. Will there be some sort of guidance saying that the Government would expect a seller to be in a scheme for age verification, so that if you are a courier company delivering products we would expect you to be in a scheme that does this and your driver would have professional training to know that, when he knocks on the door, he has to have done such and such? We need to make sure that we give the maximum amount of direction to people so we avoid these things getting into the wrong hands.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a perfectly practical point. We are aiming to produce guidance. We talked about shopkeepers the other day and the abuse of shopkeepers who are trying to abide by the law. I think some of the conversation we had with USDAW will prove very fruitful in developing our thinking on that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will you produce guidance along the lines of what I have suggested? Or are you not sure yet? Will you get to it later on?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We will produce guidance and I will of course take the noble Lord’s points into account. I cannot say whether supermarkets are currently part of the Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 scheme; I do not know the answer to that. However, in the production of guidance, you consult the various interested stakeholders to make sure that the guidance is as clear as it possibly can be.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

With the greatest respect, you would expect some of the bigger companies to have systems in place. I am more concerned about smaller couriers and shops—one-man-band operations—which may not have anything in place. Being directed to sign up to a scheme would be good for everybody concerned.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In fact, I was thinking precisely of the small shop owner, who may not have the resource. If they could sign up or reference some sort of guidance that would be ideal. I was thinking along the same lines as the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, essentially come back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made. Sellers want to make sure they are abiding by the law but, as the noble Baroness said, buyers want to make sure they are abiding by the law as well. On the systems that the noble Earl raised, I hope I did not suggest that he was trying to imply a specific system. I made the point that it would be wrong to specify a system in the legislation, given that systems are developing all the time.

To answer the point from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about age-restricted products, I have already mentioned knives, alcohol and tobacco, but lottery tickets are age-restricted as well, of course. Retailers are very used to operating in these systems, without a specific approved system in place.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This is a different type of retailer—hardware shops. You usually buy your lottery ticket from a different sort of place. I think we need to deal with these like for like.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is both right and wrong. A shop might sell a range of products that includes all these things—I am thinking of Tesco, for example—whereas a corner shop might be entirely different.

The amendments would place additional burdens on sellers and delivery firms or couriers beyond the conditions proposed in Clause 2 that would need to be met by any remote seller who is charged with an offence of selling a corrosive product to someone under 18 and wants to rely on the defence for remote sales. We have already prescribed a tight set of conditions on remote sellers if they want to rely on the defence in Clause 2. There is clearly a balance to be struck, but I am not sure that we want to go further and be more prescriptive by imposing a requirement for photographic evidence, albeit that some firms may well want to adopt such an approach.

As for obtaining and retaining photographic evidence that the corrosive product was only delivered into the hands of someone aged over 18, I would have concerns about the storage for an appropriate period of such photographs under the general data protection regulation. The person who received the package would of course need to give their consent to any photograph being taken. We also need to bear in mind that it might not necessarily be the seller making the delivery; it could be a third-party delivery firm or a courier. That would raise the question of how the photographic evidence was transferred to the seller for retention. There is also a concern that the seller would not be able to fulfil the conditions set out for condition C in Clause 2 if the delivery firm or courier delivering the package failed to take and send the photographic evidence to the seller. The seller would not be able to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package was handed over to someone over 18. I accept that these difficulties are not insurmountable, but they demonstrate the drawback of imposing a level of regulation beyond what is arguably necessary.

I reassure noble Lords that we will work with retailers, the police and trading standards on implementation of the measures relating to the sale and delivery of corrosive products to ensure that those measures are adequate. As I said, we will want to produce guidance to ensure that retailers and sellers know what steps they can take to ensure that they comply with the law. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Could I just come back to the issue of getting people to provide information? I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes about the GDPR, but we want the person who is knocking on the door to take all reasonable steps to know who the person answering the door is. Age can be quite deceptive. I had to go to the Co-op last night to get a package. I had my passport and my driving licence and I had to put in a PIN, just to pick up a jacket. These days, people often buy things that come in the post or have to be picked up from the post office or elsewhere, so giving identification is not a big issue now. If you are not doing anything wrong, why would you not provide that information anyway?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Lord was referring to the taking and retention of photographs, which is slightly different, and we need to acknowledge the distinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as you heard, Amendments 4, 5, 20 and 21 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seek to replace the punishment that a person is liable to get on conviction, as set out in the Bill, with a community sentence. Amendments 6 and 7 allow conditions to be added to prohibit offenders from selling corrosive substances.

I am very sympathetic to these amendments. We have heard about the debate that is going on in Government at the moment between the justice department and the Home Office on sentencing policy. Generally, as we have heard, short-term sentences are not the right thing to do; they can be expensive and counterproductive, and they are not long enough to deal with a person’s issues. They can actually do more harm than good: the person can lose their job, home and family and then of course they have to go back out into the community. These amendments concern the delivery driver and the owner of the corner shop—the person who sold the products—not the young person who may want to commit other offences.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Magistrates have the ability to look at the case in detail and decide on the best punishment. It could be that, for a second or third offence, prison might be the right place to put this person, because they will not listen. Equally, I want to make sure that the magistrates deciding these cases have that ability because they will know whether the offence merits a community sentence. I want to hear that a suite of punishments is available to the court and not have it driven down that they must impose a mandatory sentence. On that basis, although I have some sympathy with the amendments as they are, I want a much broader suite that enables the court to look at the evidence before it and make a sentence that it believes is appropriate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling these amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to them, as it provides us with the opportunity to debate the appropriateness of the penalties we are proposing for anyone found guilty of selling a corrosive product to someone aged under 18 or for arranging the delivery of a corrosive product to residential premises or a locker. I am not persuaded of the case for replacing custodial sentences of up to six months for the sale and delivery offences with community sentences. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, very articulately outlined why they might be necessary for some, but not all, offences. Let me explain my reasons for this.

We need to consider the significant harm corrosive products can cause if they are misused as a weapon to attack someone. My noble friend Lady Eaton pointed out one such circumstance in which this might happen: domestic abuse settings. The effects can be significant and life-changing for a victim, leaving them with permanent injuries, not to mention causing serious psychological harm. But it is important to be clear that in providing this maximum custodial penalty we are providing the courts with a range of penalties, from custody through to a fine or both. That gives the courts the option to impose a community sentence if that is most suitable, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and, of course, of the offender.

There is also the requirement under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that the court has to be satisfied that the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified, so we can have every confidence that our courts will be sentencing offenders appropriately. Where a custodial sentence is justified they will impose it, but where a community order would be better for punishment and rehabilitation while protecting the public nothing in our provisions prevents it. There is also the broader legal framework to consider and the novel problems of a maximum penalty being a community order.

I must point out to noble Lords that, under Section 150A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a community sentence can be imposed only where the offence is punishable by a prison sentence. That is an important point to note. Even if it were possible to change the maximum penalties we are proposing, it would raise the problem that if someone wilfully breached their community order, then, as the law stands, it would not be possible to sentence them to custody. The courts would be able only to re-impose another community sentence. As a result, it is important that custodial sentences are available to the courts as one of the penalties available for anyone convicted of the sales offence. Such an approach is also consistent with the range of penalties available to the courts for anyone who has been convicted of selling a knife or bladed article to a person under the age of 18.

It was very clear from the debates in the House of Commons that we should treat the threat of violence from corrosives as seriously as that from knives. We have therefore tried to ensure that the offences relating to corrosives mirror those for knives wherever possible, as we discussed. I note that this approach was strongly supported by the Opposition during the detailed consideration of the Bill in Commons Committee. These amendments would undermine that approach, and would in effect be saying that selling a corrosive product to someone under the age of 18 was less serious than selling a bladed article to a person under the age 18.

I add that, as with other age-restricted products, in many cases it is the company selling the product or arranging for its delivery that would be prosecuted. Although the person at the checkout desk is sometimes prosecuted, it is more likely the case that it will be the company operating the store, because it will be responsible for ensuring that procedures and training are in place to avoid commission of the offence. This goes back to the guidance point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Where it is a company that is being prosecuted, the sentence is likely to be a fine rather than a custodial or community sentence, but if an individual is prosecuted, the full range of penalties should be available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am confused as well, so I am in good company. Maybe an example would help the Committee. I am certainly confused about what the words mean.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would it be helpful if I wrote to noble Lords giving examples?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

That seems a bit odd. If you can get the corrosive stuff only from overseas sellers, you will get the rest of your stuff from an overseas seller too because it is that much more convenient. If there is no positive effect—because people can still get the corrosive substances from an overseas seller—why ban getting them from a UK seller? It is really very easy. A lot of sellers that you think are in the UK are overseas.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can I be absolutely clear? Are we saying that you cannot buy it from a UK seller but you can buy it from an overseas seller?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

You can buy it from either, but the mechanisms for age verification are slightly different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

It seems that in this debate we have highlighted a massive hole in this legislation. Obviously when legislating on matters such as this, you are legislating not for the law-abiding people but for those—villains, crooks and suchlike—who want to do harm to others. It now seems that if you are a person who wants to use these products to attack somebody, you can go to a bad company abroad that will very happily sell them to you. You can make the transaction and the product will come in the post. You think, “Thanks very much”, and off you go to commit your crime with no problem at all. That is a very bad place for us to be in. It might be useful if the noble Baroness could write to those taking part in the Committee to explain where we are, because a big coach and horses could be driven through the Bill in this area. Unfortunately, we will find companies abroad that will sell to bad people in this country, making a mockery of the law that we are trying to pass here.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, obviously in a perfect world the overseas arrangements would mirror the home arrangements, but the rigour of the age-verification procedures applied to the arrangements for pick-up points cannot be relied on or effectively enforced for home deliveries. It would be great if we could do the same for both situations but we cannot, although I shall be very happy to talk about these issues further before Report.

Shop Workers: Protection

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not agree that they are acting as law-enforcement officers. One could take that to its ultimate conclusion and say that everyone who upholds the law is acting as a law-enforcement officer. They are simply saying that, for example, the sale of alcohol, tobacco and, in future, corrosive substances, to underage people is against the law. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, the call for evidence will bottom out exactly what is needed in the future. Nobody wants to see shop workers or any workers who deal with the public being abused in any way. I look forward to a constructive way forward on this.

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

My Lords, the Offensive Weapons Bill would rightly ban the sale of knives, bladed items and acids to under-18s, with penalties for those who break the law and sell those items. In addition to USDAW, the British Retail Consortium, the Co-op, the Association of Convenience Stores and others are supporting calls to protect shop workers who uphold the law via a specific offence for those who threaten shop workers who are doing their job and upholding the law by not selling the items in question. Why is it too much to ask the Government to protect shop workers at the same time as creating new laws and offences for selling such items?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I fully support what the noble Lord says about protecting shop workers. A number of laws to protect them are already in place; we need to explore this issue more to see what we can add to that. We are funding targeted communications going forward and refreshing the national retail crime steering group, which the Minister got up and running in December. As I said, there is no excuse for shop workers or anyone working with and serving the public being abused in any way.

Homophobic Hate Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend raises a valid point. The police and the CPS are looking into whether the charge rates differ from the reporting rates.

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

My Lords, fewer homophobic and other crimes based on gender identity are being solved. Does the Minister agree that anonymous social media accounts are playing an increasing role in this type of crime, and does she think that that could be one of the reasons why fewer crimes are being solved? If she does, what is she doing about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord raises one of the most important things: a trend in hate crime that we are seeing is the perceived anonymity of online hate crime. Particularly for children who are bullied, which the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was about, that is carried with them all day because they bring their phones home, and that can produce some dark thoughts in their minds. The online harms White Paper is due shortly, and I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord on the legislation.

Brexit: EU Citizens in the UK

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have made it abundantly clear that these people are welcome to stay. There are a number of routes open to them to confirm that status and the Government are doing everything we can to make this process as easy as possible. Of course, any party of government has a lesson to learn from the history of the Windrush generation, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says, and we do not want a repeat of that.

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s Answer is partly reassuring, but how will we ensure that people in their 80s are aware of this? People just do not know. What are the Government doing to make sure that people are aware?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there has been quite a lot of highlighting of this, both in the press and by the Government. The Government will open the public phase of the registration scheme on the 21st of this month and we hope that more people will sign up to it; thousands have done so already.

Migration: International Students

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord might like to know that the number of student visas granted to students from India, a country he often asks me about, has increased by 33%, so there are certainly no problems there. Indeed, we have gone further than the MAC recommended on post-study leave to remain and increased it to six months for graduates, and we will increase it to 12 months for postgraduate students.

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

My Lords, why are the Government having such difficulty getting people to believe their position on international students?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have just explained that in my reply to my noble friend Lord Holmes: we whip this question up although the facts before us belie it. I simply do not believe that a 26% increase in the number of visa applications represents a country struggling.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been quite a wide-ranging debate on an extremely serious subject, certainly in the shadow of the death of Mr Pomeroy only the other day. Of course, noble Lords have mentioned Dunblane and Hungerford. All noble Lords will never forget those times.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a very important point during her speech that this is not just about legislation, which goes to the heart of some of the frustration felt by noble Lords when they think that this or that should be in the Bill. As she said, we cannot solve this just by legislation. There has been work on county lines and the serious violence strategy, which I will mention shortly, on prevention, early intervention, and of course the all-important multiagency work that my noble friend Lady Couttie mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the consultation on the public health duty. That is at the heart of the Home Secretary’s approach. We have already started working with Scottish officials to develop learning from their public health approach. The Home Secretary chairs the cross-party, cross-stakeholder serious violence task force, together with the Mayor of London. There will be a consultation on the new legal duty that will underpin the public health approach to tackling serious violence. The Government will launch that consultation shortly. This approach is not before time, as many noble Lords mentioned.

A number of noble Lords questioned the legal certainty around the terms of the new offences provided for in the Bill, a point also raised by the JCHR, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is a member. Possession of corrosives in a public place requires a different approach from the sale of corrosives to under-18s. For the sale of corrosives, we have taken the approach of listing the specific chemicals in Schedule 1. However, for possession of corrosives in a public place an approach is needed that can be used operationally by the police. That is why Clause 6(9) defines a corrosive as,

“capable of burning human skin by corrosion”.

This definition would not capture most household cleaning products, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, posits, but it would cover some stronger drain cleaners and industrial cleaning agents.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham asked about the Schedule 1 list and the difference of approach we have taken to defining a corrosive product for prohibiting the sale of corrosives to under-18s and a corrosive substance for the purposes of possessing a corrosive. For the sale offence, manufacturers and retailers need absolute clarity over what they can and cannot sell, so we have listed the specific chemicals and concentration levels in Schedule 1. The relevant products will be barcoded—I hope that that answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—to help retailers avoid selling them to children. For the possession offence, we need a simpler definition that police can use on the ground because, of course, they are not chemists. We have used a definition based on the burning of human skin that can be tested by the police using a simple kit that is currently being developed, which I hope goes to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked about car batteries. We are aware of the potential issue relating to sealed batteries used in cars and mobility scooters. We are looking at this further. I am sure we will return to it in further stages. Our intention is certainly not to cause unintended problems from the measures in the Bill on legitimate activities. The Bill is aimed at tackling violent crime, not restricting legitimate business.

My noble friend Lord Lucas asked why we have not provided a full list of banned corrosives. The corrosive products in Schedule 1 reflect the advice of the police and the government scientists. They are substances that are most likely to be used in acid attacks. The concentration levels reflect those that are likely to cause permanent damage if used in an attack. There is a delegated power to add further substances to Schedule 1 if further evidence shows that it is required.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about raising the age to 21, rather than 18, for age-restricted products such as corrosives and knives. The current universal age of a child is someone until the age of 18. Placing the age restriction on measures on corrosives in the Bill would set a precedent for other age-restricted products such as knives and alcohol. We need to consider proportionality. Knives and corrosives are not in themselves weapons. They have many legitimate uses. It would be wrong to say that an adult cannot buy drain cleaner or, indeed, a bread knife. A better approach is to challenge those who might look under the age of 21. This is something that responsible retailers already do.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the good reason defence for the purposes of Clause 6. The good reason defence has existed for some time for bladed and pointed articles and has been operated by the police with no issues. A good reason would include taking the corrosive home for its intended purpose, or use in the course of employment or academic study. As I said before, we do not expect the police to challenge shoppers as they leave supermarkets. It is intended to tackle those who have serious violent intent, acting on intelligence and reasonable suspicion.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of stop-and-search powers. As he will be aware, if an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect someone of carrying a prohibited article, such as a corrosive substance, with the intent to cause injury, the police already have the power to conduct a stop and search under PACE 1984. We have been consulting on extending stop and search to ensure that there are no gaps in police powers. Police officers will still need reasonable grounds to justify the use of these powers for the new offence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and another noble Lord asked about acid testing kits. We have jointly commissioned the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, along with the NPCC, to develop an effective and robust testing regime which will allow police officers to be able to safely test suspect containers and bottles for corrosive substances. It is our intention to have a viable testing kit available to the police before the provisions on the new possession offence are commenced. My noble friend Lady Eaton made the very sensible point that the testing kit needs to be cost effective. Of course it does.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about labelling, alongside the issue of barcoding. We considered labelling of corrosive products but chemical manufacturers were opposed to this. Their products are sold internationally and having specific labelling for the UK market would have been expensive. However, I know from personal experience that certain products are already labelled, particularly those that contain substances which can prove to be corrosive in their more concentrated form.

There was a lot of discussion on .50 calibre rifles. The noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Ramsbotham, all questioned the removal from the Bill of the prohibition of high-power rifles, although this change to the Bill was welcomed by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I assure all noble Lords on both sides of the argument that we have looked into these issues in great detail. It is apparent that they are more complex than they at first appeared, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out. This issue requires further careful consideration before deciding how best to proceed. We therefore feel that it is only right to consider the issue further in consultation with interested parties. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that will be in the next few months and probably after the passage of the Bill. In the interim, it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that work by including a ban on these weapons in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Caithness talked about taking up the APPG suggestions. I shall certainly look at those before Committee. My noble friend Lord Attlee has put forward a helpful proposal. We welcome all these ideas and will consider this further as part of the wider consultation.

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and my noble friend Lord Robathan talked about Northern Ireland and the fact that some of the firearms used there are still not banned. We did consult fully, but the consultation options were limited to whether or not to prohibit them, not whether enhanced security, as has been suggested for the .50 calibre rifles, would be a factor in mitigating any threats raised by law enforcement. Public safety is our number one priority. In response to the points made on the security of such weapons, I can say that we expect owners to continue to take all reasonable security measures and ensure that the relevant level of security is in place, under existing firearm certificates.

There was a lot of support for shop workers and I totally understand where that point is coming from. The noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out that shop workers are not only under strain but are intimidated by some customers. They asked how we can afford greater protection to those workers. The Government continue to consider the case for a bespoke offence relating to assaults on retail staff. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say that last month my ministerial colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Crime hosted a round-table meeting attended by David Hanson MP, Richard Graham MP and representatives from the British Retail Consortium, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. It was a very productive meeting and we are currently considering how best to proceed.

My noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about manually activated release system rifles, or MARS as they are more commonly known. The firing systems in these weapons means that they can discharge rounds at a much faster rate than conventional bolt-action rifles. There are, no doubt, some shooters who can manipulate a bolt-action rifle very quickly, but we cannot ignore the fact that these MARS and lever release rifles are closer to self-loading rifles, which are already prohibited in civilian ownership. We have sought to point out, in the public consultation and subsequently, that potential misuse of these rifles presents an unacceptable risk. It is therefore appropriate that they should be subject to the most stringent controls. If individual owners wish to convert their rifles to a straight-pull action or to have them deactivated before the Bill passes into law, as my noble friend suggested, they will have that choice. If not, I can confirm that we will make arrangements for compensation to be paid to owners who choose to surrender their rifles instead. We will return to the subject of an amnesty and discuss it further in Committee.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and other noble Lords raised the issue of air weapons and the need for consultation ahead of any action in relation to them. The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service announced a review of the regulation of air weapons in October 2017, following the coroner’s report into the tragic death of Benjamin Wragge, a 13 year-old boy who was shot accidentally with an air weapon in 2016. The Government recognise that there are very strong views on the regulation of air weapons. As the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability said in Committee in another place, it is our intention to announce the outcome of that review shortly.

My noble friend also made a number of valuable points in relation to the medical suitability of firearms certificate holders. My noble friend Lord Bethell talked about modernising the processes for obtaining firearms licences, so that we can continue to command the public’s trust in the efficacy of the system. I assure my noble friend that the Government and the police, who administer firearms licensing, see the need to make progress in modernising the existing arrangements. As a step towards this, legislation was introduced at the end of 2017 to allow for the electronic submission of firearms and shotgun applications to the police. These changes were introduced to help pave the way for online processes and they mean that individual police forces can now accept applications electronically if they wish to do so. This is very much a first step, but it will help both the police and individual licence holders to begin to benefit from the efficiencies that digitisation will bring.

My noble friend also raised the issue of prosecution in relation to offences involving corrosive substances. I take his point about the need to do more to ensure that all offenders who use a corrosive substance are brought to justice: that is why the NPCC has been working hard to ensure that the policing response is effective and that training is developed for officers dealing with these attacks, including new first responder training and advice. Special investigative guidance has also been developed to help officers understand how to safely recover and handle any evidence at the scene, and the evidence required to build a case for prosecution. A number of high-profile court cases over the course of 2018 resulted in successful convictions and lengthy custodial sentences. That has sent a clear message that these horrendous attacks will not be tolerated. We think that sentences act as a deterrent.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about minimum mandatory sentences. The minimum mandatory sentence that applies in England and Wales for the offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place mirrors that which already exists for possession of a bladed article in public. We believe that corrosives should be treated as seriously as knives as a weapon, particularly for repeat offences. Under Clause 8 the court will have the flexibility not to impose a minimum sentence where it would be unjust to do so.

My noble friend Lord Bethell asked how measures in the Bill on corrosives will lead to successful convictions. We will be working closely with police and trading standards on the implementation of measures prohibiting the sale and delivery of corrosive products to under-18s and prohibiting the delivery of corrosive products to residential premises. This will include developing guidance to ensure that the new offences can be effectively enforced. In addition, we will look to work with retailers, through relevant trade associations, on the implementation of these measures, to ensure that retailers know which corrosive products are caught by this and that they will need to apply their Challenge 21 and Challenge 25 policies where appropriate. We have already put in place a set of voluntary commitments on the responsible sale of corrosive substances. These prohibit sales to under-18s, and a number of major retailers have signed up to them.

My noble friend also spoke about the need for prevention and early intervention, as did I. This goes to the heart of our efforts to tackle this terrible problem. I reassure my noble friend that we will use the research findings that we have commissioned to help us shape effective prevention and early intervention programmes that can be delivered in various settings, whether that is in schools, pupil referral units or youth projects. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked why the Bill does not cover the threat of fake acid attacks. Actually, threatening with an inert substance such as water which the person claims is acid is already an offence that can be prosecuted as common assault or as a public order offence.

I know I am running out of time, but I will address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, about kirpans. What is now Clause 25 provides for a defence for the purpose of “religious reasons”, as opposed to the original wording, “religious ceremonies”. This ensures that the possession in private of large kirpans for religious reasons can continue, even when not in the context of a ceremony such as a wedding. It does not extend to the gifting of ceremonial swords with a blade of more than 50 centimetres in length, but I would be happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Singh, ahead of Committee.

I shall finish by talking about police numbers, because a lot of questions were asked about this. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a point about the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and I am now going to make a point about the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. That points to the fact that the issue is complex: I am not saying that the police are not under strain, but of course other factors, such as the increase in drugs markets, have contributed to the rise in serious violence. Of course, overall public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in 2018-19.

Finally, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove, not only for all she has done to support victims but for some of the things she has been able to share with us today from her very tragic experience. I know that she is meeting my officials shortly. She has made every articulate point, as has the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the importance of support for victims. The Government are putting victims and survivors at the heart of our response. We want victims to feel confident in coming forward, so that the perpetrators of these crimes can be brought to justice.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she go back to her point about .50 calibre weapons? She said that this is very important and serious and that the Government want to consult properly and do not want to ban things before they have had a consultation. I see that train of thought—but she then said that the consultation will finish after we have considered the Bill. What will happen if the Government then decide to ban the weapons? Do we then need further legislation or is there a power in here that the Government could take? Perhaps she can come back to me on that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is a very fair point and I will come back to the noble Lord about just how that process will work.

If the House will indulge me for another minute, the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Storey and Lord Paddick, my noble friend Lady Couttie and others all talked about early intervention and prevention, and the balance between prevention and law enforcement. I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who said we are not funding some of the early interventions. We are providing £17.7 million over the next two years through the Early Intervention Youth Fund, about which I have spoken in this House. We also support early intervention and prevention through the new rounds of the Anti-Knife Crime Community Fund for 2018-19 and 2019-20. The fund for 2018-19 was recently increased to £1.5 million, which has funded 68 projects. Our continued focus on a multiagency approach is absolutely the right one to tackling serious violence. I shall leave it there. I will write to noble Lords about the higher education point, the definition of a bladed product, the points made by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and of course the Commonwealth Games, which I will take back.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton]

I will conclude what I was saying. I believe that this amendment is modest and necessary and will be helpful. It will provide statistics with which future judgments can be made, so I support it.

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

My Lords, this issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in Committee and again today on Report. As he told the House previously, in 2016-17, 6,093 people were referred to the process, but only 6% of them were referred to a Channel programme. The ethnicity and religion of those who are referred are missing from the data. That omission denies the Minister, officials and others important and valuable data.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, was clear in Committee that the Government wholeheartedly agreed with the intent of the amendment, but she was not convinced that it was needed to achieve the intention. When she responds, will she update the House on the work that is being done by the Home Office chief statistician, who, we are told, is looking at this issue?

To conclude, I support the aims of the amendment. It will provide valuable information for the Government. It would be welcome if the Minister could update the House on whether what has been asked for could be done through other means.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I will be happy to update the House on some of the work that is going on. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the principle that activities under the Prevent strategy are made as transparent as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned the Prevent oversight board. I am pleased to hear that it met just the other day. However, there is great interest in the operation of the Channel programme, and the publication of statistics on it has already added to that transparency, dispelled some of the myths which surrounded its operation, and provided useful substance to debates in this House. We have so far published data on referrals to Prevent, and the progress through the Channel system of those referrals, covering in detail 2015-16 and 2016-17 and, in lesser detail, the previous years from April 2012. The latest set of statistics, covering 2017-18, was published last week.

The published data covers the numbers at different stages of the process from initial referral, through discussion at Channel panel, to the provision of support. It includes, among other things, the type of extremism which led to the referral; the age, gender and regional location of the person referred, and the sector which made the referral. It also looks at how successful the programme is.

The data is still at a relatively early stage in its development and is therefore classed as experimental statistics. Feedback from users is very important as the dataset develops, and it is clear from noble Lords’ comments that additional categories of data, such as the religion and ethnicity of those who are referred—as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said—would be a welcome addition to the current set. As I indicated in Committee, working through the Home Office chief statistician, we would be happy to explore including this data in future publications. At this stage, that would depend on the quality and completeness of the data.

I mentioned in Committee that currently at least half of the records supplied to the Home Office do not include ethnicity or religion. The publication of such variables could therefore be misleading at this stage. There will clearly be more work which officials can do to ensure that this data is captured and recorded in an accurate and nationally consistent manner.

I return briefly to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in Committee. He was interested in whether referrals made by the police were more or less likely than others to end up being discussed on Channel panels and offered support. I promised at the time to look at the underlying data to see if such an analysis were possible, and I am happy to confirm what my noble friend Lady Barran said on that occasion—that this data already forms part of the published data set and can be found in accompanying tables available on the GOV.UK website.

On the understanding that the Home Office chief statistician is looking at the issue raised in this amendment, I hope the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this issue was also looked at in detail in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises an important issue concerning groups that have been added to the list of proscribed organisations and that have, to all intents and purposes, stopped engaging in the activity or activities that led to them being added to the list in the first place and the risk to individuals getting caught up in that.

I have listened carefully to the issues raised in that previous debate and in today’s debate and reflected on them, but I have come to the conclusion that I am not persuaded that the change proposed by these amendments is necessary or right at this time. The first duty of government is to protect the public. As we have heard, the 2000 Act already provides a mechanism for an organisation to seek deproscription: there is detailed in Section 4 and further in Section 5 an appeals process to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission. Further, on a point of law, organisations can go to the Court of Appeal.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there is a process already in place and further, on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made regarding Northern Ireland, I am not persuaded that these amendments are right today. That is not to say that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, could not be considered to be introduced at some point in the future, but I am not convinced on the merits of the case at this time.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these amendments return to an issue raised with some force by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in our earlier debates. I am conscious that I was unable to persuade him of my view that the well-intentioned amendment he tabled in Committee would not be in the public interest. I am grateful to him for the further amendment which he has tabled, which would operate in parallel to his original proposal for annual reviews, and which he has explained is intended to address some of the concerns the Government have with that proposal. On careful consideration, regretfully, I cannot agree that it does do so and the Government are not able to support it for reasons I will come to shortly.

Before I come to the detail of the amendments, I should be clear that the Government consider proscription to be a necessary power that plays an important role in protecting the public. Organisations are proscribed for a good reason: because they are terrorist in nature, and because it is in the public interest to prevent them being able to operate or to gain support in the UK. This plays an important role in protecting the public from potentially very dangerous organisations, as well as more generally in maintaining public confidence and, where relevant, supporting our international partners in the struggle against terrorism. The Government also consider that the power’s impact is proportionate to that purpose.

In forming this view I have in mind that, beyond restricting the ability of an individual to engage in the specific activities covered by the proscription offences relating to the particular organisation which has been proscribed, the power does not otherwise impact on their ability to conduct a normal day-to-day life. The impact of proscribing an organisation is not, therefore, overly intrusive or unavoidable from the individual’s perspective.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Amendment 33A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has considerable merit. It proposes the collection of this data, including what is set out in subsection (3) of the amendment, and laying a report before Parliament detailing the exercise of the considerable powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act during the year in question. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response. If they are not minded to accept the amendment, I hope they will give a full explanation of why this is not deemed necessary or acceptable.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I agree with the sentiment of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about the role of communities. They are important in assisting the police and security services in countering not only terrorism but extremism. Amendment 33A would require the Home Secretary to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament each year setting out how the ports powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to this Bill have been exercised.

Reiterating some of what I said earlier, the Government agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is unnecessary. We entirely agree that transparency and accountability are appropriate in governing the exercise of the new hostile activity ports powers, as is the case with the existing counterterrorism powers. I reiterate, however, that such mechanisms are already in place through the work of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation with respect to Schedule 7, and the future role of the IPC for Schedule 3. Part 6 of Schedule 3 already requires the IPC to review the use of the powers by making an annual report. We envisage this working in a very similar way to the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who reports annually on the use of counterterrorism powers under the Terrorism Act, including those in Schedule 7.

Noble Lords should be reassured that the commissioner, like the independent reviewer, will be afforded full access to any Schedule 3 record on request and information on how the powers have been exercised. The scope and content of these reports will be at the discretion of the commissioner, as they have been for a number of years regarding Schedule 7. The annual reports by the independent reviewer are augmented by the quarterly statistical bulletins, published by the Home Office, on the operation in Great Britain of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. The latest bulletin was published on 6 December and, incidentally, recorded a further 25% decrease in the number of Schedule 7 examinations compared with the previous year. The number of Schedule 7 examinations has now fallen by 79% since the data was first collected in the year ending 30 September 2012. The published data already includes information about the ethnicity of examinees and the number of detentions.

As I said earlier, we are considering with the Home Office chief statistician the appropriate arrangements for publishing statistics on the exercise of the Schedule 3 powers, but we would expect to publish equivalent statistics to Schedule 7. The statistical reports in respect of Schedule 7 do not currently identify the religion of examinees, but we are ready to explore this with the Home Office chief statistician, the police and others. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 34A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises the same issue that the noble Lord led on in Committee. The noble Lord quite rightly raised the issue of the words “hostile act”. The words are far too wide and give a disproportionate power to the relevant authorities. The noble Lord spoke in Committee about these strong coercive powers.

To their credit, the Government have listened to that debate and I know that they have been in discussion with a number of noble Lords around the House, as have government officials. I have found those discussions very helpful and I am persuaded that the amendments put forward by the Government in this group address the concerns raised previously, so I am content to support the Government and their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, with this group of amendments we return to the question of the proper scope of the powers in Schedule 3. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has again argued that police powers of this kind should only be available to the police to tackle criminal behaviour. As I highlighted in Committee, and would like to stress again, these new powers to examine persons at ports and the border area are specifically designed to mitigate the threat from all forms of hostile state activity. Limiting the scope of these powers would limit the range of threats that we would be able to detect, disrupt and deter, thereby leaving the country vulnerable.

The noble Lord is correct that many of the activities we are concerned about may be criminal in nature, including offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911. However, not only is this legislation generally recognised to be outdated and not fit for the modern age, but not all hostile activity would fall within scope. The noble Lord is right that we need to consider modernising the law in this area, and the House is aware that the Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal law surrounding the protection of official data, which includes all the Official Secrets Acts, but this work will necessarily take some time to come to fruition and, until we know the outcome, it would be wrong to narrow the scope of the provisions in Schedule 3. To do so would necessarily inhibit our ability to counter hostile activity, as the police would naturally err on the side of caution when conducting stops, given the risk of challenge about whether the stop or subsequent questioning was clearly for the purpose of determining whether the examinee is, or has been, involved in serious crime.

I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns that the breadth of the power could encompass activities which are not considered crimes. If such activity threatens the safety of our citizens, our democracy and our national security, it is only right that we afford the police the powers to investigate, prevent and discourage these acts in order to protect us. Some hostile activity would not be considered criminal activity under the law as is stands—for example, the proliferation of disinformation. We know that certain states routinely use disinformation as a foreign policy tool and have seen evidence of this happening elsewhere.

In recent years, some states have attempted to influence opinions online by using human and automated troll farms to establish fake social media profiles or spread disinformation. One can imagine a scenario in which a member of one such troll farm, controlled by a foreign power that has been observed attempting to influence public debate in the UK, travels to the UK. The act of sowing discord through proliferation of disinformation is not a crime in the UK, but you can imagine a scenario in which it would threaten our national security. Under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, police officers at ports would be rightly unwilling to ask about these activities, as they are not illegal.

Interference operations are not restricted to the online space. Suppose an individual with suspected links to a hostile foreign intelligence agency travels to the UK, with the intention of meeting parliamentarians under a benign pretext, but with the real intention of influencing them to support a particular position which would be of benefit to that state. This type of activity is not illegal in the UK; the individual is not obliged to disclose that they have an ulterior motive of seeking to influence parliamentarians, but noble Lords understand that this activity is a threat to our national security and risks undermining our parliamentary democracy. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, as this type of activity would not be classified as a crime in the UK, police officers at ports would be unable to ask questions of a sufficiently detailed nature to provide the level of insight necessary to properly understand, assess, further investigate or disrupt the threat that this activity would present.

Some individuals may not even be aware that they are acting on behalf of a hostile actor. They may think they are working for a charity or a friend. Many of the serious crimes that we would consider linking to Schedule 3 require an intention element on the part of the individual.

We have reflected carefully on comments made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the scope of the “threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom” limb of the definition of a hostile act. There were concerns that legitimate business ventures would fall within scope of the power. This limb of the definition is intended to ensure that these powers can be used to mitigate hostile acts such as damaging the country’s national infrastructure or disrupting energy supplies to the UK. It is not our intention that these powers are available to examine those travelling only to conduct legitimate business.

To address these concerns, I have tabled Amendment 34C, which narrows the scope of the “economic well-being” limb. This amendment will provide that an act is a hostile act under this limb only if it threatens the economic well-being of the UK,

“in a way relevant to the interests of national security”.

The other government amendments in this group make consequential changes to other references to the economic well-being of the UK in Schedule 3.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked whether the IPC will have the resources needed to review the use of Schedule 3. The Government are committed to ensuring the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has the resources that he or she needs to fulfil all their functions, including Schedule 3 when these provisions come into force. However, I should emphasise that we expect the use of Schedule 3 powers to be very low, certainly far below the number of Schedule 7 examinations conducted in 2017.

At this point, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Home Office is reviewing whether there is a need for new counter hostile state activity legislation. I have already mentioned the Law Commission review of the Official Secrets Acts, but our work is not confined solely to that area of criminal law. Of course, any reforms to the Official Secrets Acts or any other new offences will require further primary legislation and, in taking this work forward, I can assure the noble Lord that we will examine as part of the work whether there are any changes that we ought to make to Schedule 3.

In taking this wider work forward, we will also have the benefit of the annual reports on the exercise of Schedule 3 powers by the IPC. I am confident that in reviewing this, having all the resources he needs in place, the commissioner will adopt the same robust approach as did the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. He will not hold back from making recommendations if he considers that, in the light of the experience of operating these powers, changes should be made to Schedule 3. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill will be subject to the normal five-year post-legislative review.

I hope that, given this explanation, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment. I have explained the need to maintain the current scope of the power subject to the narrowing of the “economic well-being” limb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raises important issues with these two amendments, and I am happy to give my support in principle. As the noble Baroness said herself, I am not convinced that these amendments, as written, are correct, though they certainly raise issues the Government should look at and support. All of us here would, I hope, support journalists, and a free and responsible press.

The issues raised by the amendments need looking at; I hope that the Minister will do so when she responds. Perhaps we can find a way forward, possibly at Third Reading, to address the concerns here. It is about getting the balance right between protecting our country, protecting the rights of journalists and keeping ourselves safe and secure. We need to get those issues right in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree totally with noble Lords that there is a balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and getting material that is not conducive to this country’s well-being. The amendments reflect concerns about how Schedule 3 ports powers apply to journalistic material and sources. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke passionately about that issue in Committee; I hope to assure her that Schedule 3 includes a number of safeguards to protect confidential material, including confidential journalistic material.

Schedule 3 is a counter-hostile state activity power. With that in mind, it is vital that ports officers are equipped to deal with the means and methods of those engaged in such activity. I spoke in Committee about the very real threat we face from foreign intelligence officers and their agents who actively use the cover of certain professions including journalism, the law and others. That is why Schedule 3 introduces new powers to allow for action to be taken where an article that may include confidential material could be used in connection with a hostile act, presents a threat to life or could lead to significant injury.

Amendment 34E would undermine the ability of ports officers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile actors as it would allow a person simply to refuse a request for documents or information, including sources, where they claim that it consists of journalistic material, as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Investigatory Powers Act, or is subject to legal privilege. That would prohibit the examining officer verifying that the material in question is confidential or journalistic and would require the officer to take the examinee at their word.

I have spoken before about why that would be problematic when faced with trained hostile actors who will seek to exploit any possible loophole in our legislation, yet the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are precisely why the new retention powers in respect of confidential information require the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who must be satisfied that certain conditions are met before granting that authorisation. This approach protects the work of legitimate journalists and lawyers and is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Schedule 7 case of Miranda, to which the noble Baroness referred. In that case, the court said that,

“independent and impartial oversight … is the natural and obvious adequate safeguard”,

in examination cases involving journalistic freedom.

Amendment 34F would extend the statutory bar—which prohibits answers or information given orally by a person during an examination being used in criminal proceedings—to any information or documents given where the material is considered journalistic. Noble Lords will know that the purpose of this important safeguard, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is to protect an examinee against self-incrimination where they must respond to questioning under compulsion and so do not have a right to silence. The amendment would extend the statutory bar into territory it was not designed or intended to cover. It could prevent evidence of a hostile act from being used in criminal proceedings where it had been acquired through the legitimate examination of confidential material on the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Accepting this amendment would undermine the ability of the police and the CPS to prosecute hostile actors, either those who have used journalistic cover to disguise their criminal activities or those whose activities might be evidenced by confidential material in the hands of a third party.

Although I do not agree with the amendments, for the reasons I have explained, I recognise the force of the noble Baroness’s arguments on the need for strong protections for journalistic material that is not confidential. I will therefore ask my officials to consider if any additional protections may be introduced through the Schedule 3 codes of practice. I can undertake to keep the noble Baroness informed of progress with this work, and of course a revised version of the draft code of practice will need to come back to this House to be approved before those provisions come into force. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the House another opportunity to debate the appropriate safeguards for journalistic and legally privileged material under Schedule 3. In light of my undertaking to do this additional work, I hope she will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.

Police Funding Settlement

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have made. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the Government’s own part in this situation—that is, the funding position that we find ourselves in—and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the very similar point that we had caused a crisis in public safety. I have to say to both noble Lords that 2010 saw the advent of the new coalition Government of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems after one of the worst economic crashes that I have known in my lifetime. Any responsible Government would have had to have taken measures to take that in hand and control it. Both noble Lords are right that funding has been tough, but I could not say that the blame should all be laid at this Government’s door. We have tried to live within our means as opposed to overspending and ultimately creating problems for the next generations through public debt and the deficit.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about how the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Lord Blair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Regarding accountability, particularly for efficiency and effectiveness, HMICFRS tests that across police forces and, ultimately, the public test their PCCs at the ballot box.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before we move on, I should of course have mentioned in my previous intervention that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I normally remind the House repeatedly, but in this instance I completely forgot.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Amendments 1 and 2, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, concern issues that we discussed in Committee. I listened carefully to the debate then and have listened carefully to the debate this afternoon. I have great respect for the noble Baroness but I want to make it clear that if she puts her amendment to the vote today and divides the House, we will not be with her. For me, the crucial word is “and”, which links new subsections (1A)(a) and (1A)(b). My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey made the point that we need to read and consider both paragraphs together.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, put it much more eloquently and succinctly than I can and he has done so again today. In Committee, he said:

“First, it recognises that even in this relatively gun-free”,


society,

“if someone expresses support in a certain way for a proscribed organisation, it may put some of our fellow citizens in mortal danger of their lives.”.

He went on:

“It does not criminalise the expression of support, rather it forbids and criminalises the expression of support on certain terms as set out in proposed new Section 1A(b), and that is the test of recklessness. Recklessness requires awareness of the risk that is being taken by the speaker”.—[Official Report, 29/10/18; cols. 1130-31.]


I agree very much with that position and, on the basis of it and what I have heard today, we will not support the noble Baroness in the Lobbies today. I did not accept at all her point that you can be supportive of an organisation but not support it. I think that if you are supportive of it, you do support an organisation. The clause as drafted is reasonable and, for me, it strikes the right balance.

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

I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for moving her amendment. She has set out her position on this clearly and consistently, but I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if I rehearse the reasons why the Government cannot support the amendments.

As the noble Baroness said, Clause 1 amends Section 12(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000, under which it is currently an offence to invite another person to support a proscribed terrorist organisation. An invitation in this context may be explicit or indirect, and may be implicit or opaque, but for a conviction to be secured the prosecution must be able to prove that the person intended to influence others to support the terrorist organisation. I recognise that, when considered in the abstract, this may appear to be the right threshold for the offence. However, in its operation it has been shown to leave a significant gap in the ability of the police, the CPS and the courts to act against hate preachers and radicalisers, as noble Lords have pointed out. This is because such individuals will often be careful to err on just the right side of the law. They will express opinions and beliefs which, in the judgment of a reasonable person, would be likely to have the effect of encouraging others to support proscribed terrorist groups but will stop short of statements which would go far enough to allow the CPS to prove that they intended such encouragement. This is despite them clearly and unambiguously risking harm to the public by virtue of their expressions.

This gap is illustrated by some of the cases to which I have previously drawn the House’s attention, and which were described by Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. I urge noble Lords to examine that evidence carefully. In those cases, it was not possible to prosecute prolific and high-profile preachers of hate who had made highly inflammatory public speeches which were very clear about the speaker’s own support for terrorist organisations and methodology and which were on any reasonable assessment likely to cause their audience to be influenced to support a proscribed organisation. They included open admiration for Daesh and other terrorist groups and praise for their methods, ideology and activities.

However, I hope I will reflect the views of many noble Lords when I say that the current position strikes the wrong balance if it allows such obviously harmful behaviour to go unchallenged. This is behaviour that can have a powerful effect in initiating or moving along the process of radicalisation. There are radicalisers and hate preachers who have, time and again, been shown to have played a prominent and influential role in the backgrounds of those who have been convicted of planning or carrying out terrorist attacks.

Clause 1 is intended to close the gap I have described by bringing within the ambit of the Section 12(1)(a) offence individuals who are reckless as to whether they will cause this harm to arise. We have previously debated what is meant by “reckless”, but I think it is worth briefly setting this out again, before I turn to my concerns with the noble Baroness’s proposed amendments to Clause 1.

To answer the noble Baroness’s question, the term “reckless” is a well-established and well-understood concept in the criminal law, and one with which the courts are familiar, in particular as a result of clear case law established by the then Appellate Committee of this House in 2003 in the case of R v G and another. A person acts recklessly where he or she is aware that in the circumstances there is a risk that their conduct will result in the proscribed outcome, and they none the less engage in that conduct in circumstances where a reasonable person would not.

So, under Clause 1, a person might act recklessly if, in the course of addressing an audience consisting primarily of individuals whom he believes are of an Islamist extremist mindset, he speaks of his own support for Daesh, believing he has a degree of influence over the audience and being aware of the risk that members of the audience will be influenced by him to support Daesh. I hope noble Lords will not disagree when I say that a reasonable person would not, and should not, proceed to make that speech in those circumstances. A person who none the less does so would therefore be doing so recklessly. It may not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt an intention to influence their audience to support Daesh, but I consider it appropriate and proportionate that the courts can hold them to account if they are reckless in this way. Clause 1 will ensure that this is the case.

Turning now to Amendment 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, set out a concern that the reference to a statement that is “supportive” of a proscribed organisation might risk a person being found guilty of a terrorism offence having tweeted their support for a legitimate political objective which happens to be shared by a proscribed terrorist organisation. She gave the examples of support for an independent Kurdistan and for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Occupied Territories, both of which are entirely legitimate standpoints but which are also objectives of, respectively, the PKK and the military wings of Hamas and Hezbollah. I have previously assured her, and I am happy to repeat those assurances, that this is not the case. In her example, there would be no suggestion that the person supported terrorist methods to achieve the political objectives to which they aspired or that they supported any proscribed terrorist organisation. There would, therefore, be no basis on which a reasonable person might equate such a statement with support for the PKK or for the proscribed wings of Hamas or Hezbollah or might anticipate that a listener would be influenced to support those organisations. As such, the statements would not meet the recklessness test and would clearly not be caught by Clause 1.

The noble Baroness further highlighted in Committee that the existing Section 12(1)(a) offence refers to,

“inviting support for a proscribed organisation”,

whereas Clause 1 refers to,

“opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”.

She suggested that “supportive” is, intentionally, a broader wording, which will cast the net of the offence more widely than would be the case if the word “supports” were used instead.

I think we are all clear that there is no difference in meaning in the context of the drafting. The existing Section 12(1) offence criminalises those who invite others to support a terrorist group. That word has the wider meaning that the noble Baroness described, repeating what the court said in Choudary, but in the new offence, we are talking about an opinion or belief. As a matter of syntax, an opinion or belief cannot support an issue; a person supports something. That is why parliamentary counsel has used the word “supportive” here. There is no intention to introduce a wider concept than the existing offence. Crucially, new Section 12(1)(b) requires that a person will be encouraged to support a proscribed group by the expression.

However, I can offer the noble Baroness a clear assurance that it would in any event have no meaningful impact on the effect of the clause, the scope of the offence or the range of causes that would be caught by it. This would be exactly the same whichever formulation were used.

Amendment 2 would remove the recklessness test and replace it with one that effectively repeats the existing position in the Section 12(1)(a) offence, so it would still be necessary to prove the same deliberate act of invitation to support.

The noble Baroness has made it clear that she does not support the purpose of Clause 1, and I respect that view, even if I do not agree with it, but I should make it clear to noble Lords that the amendment would entirely nullify the utility of this clause and, as such, were it to be made, we might as well simply strike the whole clause from the Bill.

I hope that with that explanation, noble Lords are satisfied and the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Clause 19 provides for a local authority to have the power to refer a person who is vulnerable to or at risk of being drawn into terrorism to a Channel panel for support. Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, would place a requirement in the Bill that the person who previously referred the individual cannot be the representative of the local authority on the panel.

The noble Baroness set out a clear and compelling case for the amendment, and I will be happy to support her. She addressed a number of points that need to be responded to by the Minister in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also made an important point about the risks to decision-making if you are the person making the referral and you make decisions as well. It may be that the Minister will say that the points made by the noble Lord will be taken into account by the local authority anyway, so it would not get into that situation, but he made a very valid point.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for explaining her amendment. It might be helpful if I begin by briefly explaining how an individual is referred to a Channel panel, before turning to why it is important that we do not preclude someone who refers an individual from sitting on the panel itself. I apologise to noble Lords who know precisely how someone is referred to a Channel panel.

When talking about referrals to Channel, it is important to recognise that it is a two-stage process, the second of which is covered by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The first stage is the initial raising of a concern that someone might be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. I take slight exception to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, describing the person as the “accused”; they are not accused but are being referred because they are vulnerable.

This referral can be done by anyone at all, such as, but not limited to, a social worker—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—a teacher, a police officer, a healthcare worker, a family member or, indeed, a friend. All such concerns will eventually, if they make it that far, be assessed by the police, often using information provided by local partners to help them. The police will decide whether there is a genuine vulnerability that merits the attention of a Channel panel and, if there is, make a referral to the panel. This second-stage referral is covered by the 2015 Act. The purpose of Clause 19 is to allow a good deal of that assessment process and second-stage referral to be carried out by local authority staff.

The chair of the Channel panel can invite local partners to the panel, and this will almost certainly include the professional who has made the second-stage referral, and perhaps the individual who raised the initial concern, particularly if they are both from one of the panel’s statutory partners. Both of these professionals are likely to have important information on the subject of the referral. I mentioned social workers—as did the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—because noble Lords will be able to see that in other contexts where the referring person may be involved, such as safeguarding, it is important and not a conflict.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 55 and 56 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Stunell, seek to insert amendments to Clause 19. As we have heard, Amendment 55 would require the collection and release of data which details the religion and ethnicity of a person referred to a panel. This could provide valuable and meaningful data to help the Government in dealing with these very difficult matters, and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in this respect. When he listed what is included, it was even more interesting to reflect on the fact that these two pieces of information are not collected. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will address that point in her reply.

On the face of it, Amendment 56 seems very sensible—but it may well be that it is not necessary, so I will listen carefully to the Government’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I shall start by addressing Amendment 55. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that it is very important that both the Prevent programme and the Channel process are open to public scrutiny, and, to this end, we support calls for greater transparency. Indeed, we have already published two years-worth of Channel statistics, covering 2015-16 and 2016-17—the latter in March of this year. We are committed to publishing these statistics on an annual basis, and expect to publish 2017-18 data towards the end of this year.

The data is extensively quality assured before publication to ensure accuracy. However, due to the provisional nature of the dataset and the need to further develop and improve our data collection, it is currently published as “experimental statistics”, indicating that the information is, as I said, at an early stage of development. As such, we look for feedback from users on what information is included, while working to improve training and guidance for those responsible for providing the data and assessing its quality and limitations.

We absolutely appreciate that figures on ethnicity and religion are likely to be of interest to users of these statistics, for all the reasons that noble Lords have outlined. Working through the Home Office Chief Statistician, we are happy to explore the inclusion of such data in future publications. However, I should stress that whether this proves to be possible will depend on a number of factors, including the quality and completeness of the data. To give an example, currently at least half of the records supplied to the Home Office do not include ethnicity or religion, so publication of such variables could be misleading at this stage. However, that is not a no; it is saying that we will work on statistics that will be useful to the public and provide for wider transparency.

Turning to Amendment 56, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, recognises the significant role that a Channel panel can have in helping to safeguard very vulnerable individuals. Although the Government agree wholeheartedly with the intent of the amendment, I will set out why we do not think it is needed to achieve this end.

Section 36(4) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requires the Channel panel to prepare a plan for an individual whom the panel considers appropriate to be offered support. Section 36(5) sets out what information must, as a minimum, be included in such a support plan—that is, how consent is to be obtained; the nature of the support to be provided; the people who will provide the support; and how and when the support will be provided.

The current wording of the Act does not preclude other information being included in the support plan, but it should also be recognised that this is not the only place where information about the individual being discussed is recorded. The vulnerability assessment framework, for example, contains relevant information about the particular vulnerabilities of the individual, drawing on all the information from the various panel members. Panel minutes will contain the record of the multiagency discussion and a risk assessment is also completed. All these documents are brought together within the case management file.

The Government agree entirely with the thrust of the amendment, which is that it is essential that the panel is aware of, takes account of, and indeed records, all matters relevant to the safeguarding needs of the individual. As noble Lords will know, that is the bread and butter of what Channel panels are about, and I reassure the Committee that the statutory Channel duty guidance makes it clear that this is the case. Paragraph 71 of the guidance, for example, says:

“The panel must fully consider all the information available to them to make an objective decision on the support provided, without discriminating against the individual’s race, religion or background”.


However, the support plan is not necessarily the right place to record that information. It is intended instead to be a simple, unambiguous document that sets out exactly who will do what and when with regard to the actual support being provided. Requiring panels to include other information here, rather than in other parts of the case management file, would be likely to diminish rather than add to its value within the process.

The noble Lord asked whether Prevent was discriminatory. The statistics reflect the type of extremism being referred and what happens at each stage of the process. It is important to note that one-third of all cases provided with support were actually referred for far-right concerns. He also asked which agencies had the highest and lowest conversion rates from referral to support. I will be happy to look at the underlying statistics and see whether that analysis is actually possible, and I will get back to him on that.

I hope that I have given the noble Lord sufficient information so that he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment, on the understanding that the Home Office Chief Statistician is looking precisely at the issue that he raised in Amendment 55.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 57A, tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Rosser, is similar to Amendment 57. However, the amendment in my name seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce a statement to accompany the review, when it has reported to Parliament, which responds to each recommendation made.

First, I place on record my thanks to all those who work to divert people from a life of terrorism and keep them on the path to a constructive life where they contribute positively to the community. We should all recognise the good work that has been done. It is, though, an important part of good governance to review matters regularly to see whether policies are working as intended or improvements can be made. That is in no way intended as a criticism of any particular programme, or of the generality of the programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made important points about transparency and the need for a review. I very much agree that this strategy is important and we must make sure that we get it right. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation would seem to be the right person to undertake this review when they are appointed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell: I have seen no project—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, intervened on this—that is actually failing. The review should be much more about the programme generally than specific projects.

There is a concern about the programme’s aims. We have to be clear as to those aims and look at whether communities have lost confidence in the programme. If they have, what are we going to do about that? Trying to understand the positives and the successes, as well as the failures, is a good thing to do. Further, the Prevent programme has the aim of community cohesion but concern has been expressed about whether this is deliverable in the light of spending reductions among local authorities, as my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon make clear in her contribution.

It is necessary to review the programme. As I said, that is not a criticism but it is important to review it to understand whether we are getting the programme right.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, perhaps I may start with a statement about our common values. A comment was made at the beginning that I or the Government were against British values. I state for the record that I am in absolutely no way against British values or the common values that we hold in this country, but the Government are committed to doing everything they can to protect communities from the threat of terrorism. That is a noble aim. It is vital that we use all the means at our collective disposal to divert people from terrorist-related activity.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said, Prevent is one of the four pillars that comprise Contest, the UK’s counterterrorism strategy. It is designed to safeguard and support those vulnerable to radicalisation, and to prevent their becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. To put this into context, it might help if I initially explain Prevent’s aims and the reasons that the Government have maintained the programme. It has three overarching aims. The first is to tackle the causes of radicalisation and respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism. The second is to safeguard and support those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support. The third is to enable those who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate. I do not think anyone could disagree with those aims.

Police Pension Liabilities

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, my honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Bradford South, Judith Cummins MP, first raised this matter with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Questions on 24 October, and received a less than satisfactory answer, to say the least. Following that answer from the Prime Minister, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners issued a joint statement in the names of Chief Constable Sara Thornton and Police and Crime Commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson. Their statement backs up the question from the Member for Bradford South and makes clear that the first notification which enabled forces to calculate the impact of pension changes came in September 2018. The impact of the changes risks a reduction in the number of police officers at a time of rising crime. It is not good enough to say today that some funding will be available, unless the issue is tackled comprehensively. The only people who will welcome the situation are the criminals, as there will be fewer police officers to tackle them and bring them to justice.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thought that there might be a question in there, but there was not—it was a statement. I do not think the noble Lord asked me a question, but I acknowledge the points that he made. He may be aware that my right honourable friend the Policing Minister has absolutely pledged to work with the Treasury and the NPCC to ensure that the funding needed to service the pensions will be forthcoming. Additionally, on the police budget itself, he has pledged to review police spending power ahead of announcing the police funding settlement for 2019-20 in early December.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Clause 12, as we have heard, is concerned with the notification requirements in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; it inserts additional matters into the Act that have to be reported in respect of motor vehicles. Amendment 36 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, sets out and includes the issue of borrowing or renting a vehicle. He rightly set out the whole issue about people renting or borrowing vehicles for use in the terrorist attacks that happened in Manchester, London and elsewhere. This is very sensible and proportionate amendment which identifies a potential loophole. I hope the Government will support it.

On Amendment 38, which amends Schedule 1 to the Bill, the noble Lord raised a very important point about the notification requirements for financial information— someone may have access to or may operate a bank account; they do not have to be the account holder. He made an important point about being the authorised signatory or being able to use a credit card. I am worried that, as it stands at present, the Bill could allow people to get around the notification requirements it proposes.

The noble Lord has raised important points on both amendments and I hope the Government can respond positively.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for what I believe are helpful amendments. I appreciate that they are intended to ensure more comprehensive coverage of the information to be notified.

Amendment 36 relates to the notification of the details of any motor vehicle which a registered terrorist offender is the registered keeper of, or acquires the right to use. Sadly, we have seen the use of motor vehicles as weapons in a number of recent terror attacks. Here in Parliament we have seen first-hand the devastating impact that such an attack can have, in the Westminster Bridge attack which took place last year. The benefits are obvious, ensuring that convicted terrorists are required to inform the police of any vehicle of which they have use.

I therefore fully recognise and support the intention of Amendment 36. It is essential that the provision should extend properly to vehicles which are borrowed or hired, which is the point the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made. Hired vehicles were used in both the Westminster Bridge and Finsbury Park attacks last year. The terrorists responsible for the London Bridge attack attempted to hire a much larger vehicle than the van that was eventually used in the attack. This was just in the UK. We have also seen the use of vehicles as weapons in the Nice truck attack in July 2016, the Las Ramblas attack in August 2017 and the Berlin Christmas market attack.

I assure the noble Lord that this issue was carefully considered in the drafting of Clause 12, and that the existing reference to vehicles which the terrorist offender acquires the right to use will fully cover vehicles that are borrowed or rented. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill make this point. I therefore suggest that Amendment 36 is not needed, and I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw it.

Amendment 38 similarly relates to a possible gap in the information to be notified to the police, in this instance relating to financial accounts. As currently drafted, this clause specifies that an offender must provide details of any account that they hold with a financial institution, or that is held by a company through which they run a business. Amendment 38 would expand this to refer also to any financial account which the registered terrorist offender is entitled to operate. The noble Lord has explained that this is intended to cover a scenario where a terrorist seeks to use an account which is not held in their name but over which they have effective control, for example because it is held in the name of their child or a relative for whom they have a power of attorney.

I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, which may have considerable merit in ensuring that the notification requirements cover all accounts which a terrorist offender might be able to use for terrorism purposes. The amendment requires more detailed consideration but, for now, I hope the noble Lord will not press it pending that consideration, and on the assurance that I will let him know the outcome of that consideration ahead of Report.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to provide clarity on the issues in question before the Committee on this clause. They seek to put into the Bill the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has looked at the Bill in detail. The committee has set out the position clearly. This clause is intended to criminalise the online publication of an image depicting clothing or other articles which arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The committee has taken the view that the arousal of reasonable suspicion of support for a proscribed organisation is a low threshold under which to make an offence. I agree very much with the committee in that respect, as I do with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it may be too low a threshold.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have put forward Amendments 7 and 8 in this group, as the Joint Committee suggested. Amendment 9, as proposed by myself and my noble friend Lord Rosser, is similar in effect to Amendment 8 but, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we also make reference to journalism and academic research. All the amendments in this group are reasonable and proportionate. The new offence of publication of an image would be retained but through them we have created a proper defence of reasonable excuse in the Bill, which is important. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has opposed Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. That gives the Minister the opportunity to justify this afternoon what is proposed in the clause.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made an extremely important point in respect of images in Northern Ireland. Like the noble Lord, I have travelled extensively in the Province, where you can now visit areas with murals all over the place. Some of them can still look quite aggressive but they are also very much part of the tourist trail in certain parts of Belfast. We need to look at this issue and be careful about whether what we do here has unintended consequences. If the Minister does not accept the amendments before the Committee, can she set out how we can be satisfied that there is adequate protection in place within the clause as drafted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, under Clause 2 it will be an offence to publish an image of an item of clothing or other article associated with a proscribed organisation,

“in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of”,

the organisation, as noble Lords have pointed out. This provision updates for the digital age the existing offence at Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalises the display in a public place of such an item in such circumstances. That existing offence applies only partially in cases where a person publishes an image online. While it would be likely to catch a person who publishes an image of, for example, a Daesh flag displayed on the streets, it could be argued not to apply to publication of an image of the same flag displayed within a private home, even if both images are made available to the general public by publishing them online in the exact same way.

The purpose of Clause 2 is to put beyond doubt the application of Section 13 to any case where a person publishes an image of something which it would be unlawful to display in person. It does this by inserting a new offence into Section 13 as its new subsection (1A). This is important to ensure that the law applies properly to contemporary online activity. In the 18 years since the Section 13 offence was enacted, we have of course seen an exponential growth in the importance of the internet in day-to-day life, and sadly its role in radicalisation and the spreading of terrorist propaganda is no different. This includes publishing images of flags and logos associated with proscribed terrorist organisations. We therefore need to update our legislation to reflect these developments and to ensure that all public spaces, including those online, are properly covered by laws which prohibit the publication of such material. Amendment 7 would simply remove this provision in its entirety, rather than seeking to amend or improve it, leaving the gap I have just described and leaving our terrorism legislation out of date and incomplete.

Amendments 8 and 9 would add a reasonable excuse defence to the new Subsection (1A) offence I have outlined. Both specify certain examples of reasonable excuse. Amendment 6 includes instances where publication of the image was not intended to be in support of a proscribed organisation, whereas Amendment 7 makes this category an absolute exemption.

Noble Lords have indicated that their intention is to ensure that the offence does not catch those with a legitimate reason to publish images of items associated with proscribed terrorist organisations, in particular in the context of historical or academic research or family photographs, or who otherwise publish such images without nefarious intent. I am very happy to support both the sentiment and the intention behind these amendments. The Government have no desire to criminalise people for simply going about their legitimate professional activities or their normal family life, but these amendments are not needed to secure that outcome. In fact, the same outcome is already secured by Clause 2.

To explain why that is so, it is important to note that the mere publication of an image associated with a proscribed organisation is not enough on its own to constitute an offence under the existing Section 13 offence or the new offence that will be added to it by Clause 2. The offence will be made out only if the image is published in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation. This provides a clear and effective safeguard. For example, in a case where a journalist features an image of a Daesh flag in a news report on the activities of the group or an academic publishes such an image in a book or research paper, it would be clear from the circumstances that they are not a member or supporter of Daesh. Similarly, where a person publishes, say, an old family photo of an ancestor standing next to an IRA flag, the offence would not bite unless all the circumstances of the publication suggest that that person is a member or supporter of the IRA.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the sensitivity of symbolism, pictures et cetera and Northern Ireland, if he will indulge me, I will move on to the specific Northern Ireland point on the next amendment.

This approach provides no less certainty to such individuals that they will not be caught by the new offence than would the proposed reasonable excuse defence, and it offers the advantage that the same formulation—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister responds, perhaps I could clarify that point. She is saying that in the example of the photograph with a Daesh flag in the background but where the person does not realise what the flag is, the publication of that picture would not in itself be an offence because you would take into account things such as the message that accompanied the Facebook post—for example, a message saying, “I’m here with my friend and having a drink”—so all those things would be considered together. I think that is what the Minister is saying.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord has just explained, it is about the whole context in which this happens. In any case, it will of course be the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that will determine those normal tests for prosecution, and of course ultimately the courts.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made the point about the viewer and the publisher. I had hoped that my words would explain that but they do not. I will take back what he says, and I am sure he will challenge me on it on Report. However, I hope the approach provides no less certainty to such individuals that they will not be caught by the new offence than would the proposed reasonable excuse defence, and it offers the advantage that the same formulation has been in force since 2000 in relation to the existing Section 13 offence, which would already be likely to cover many of the circumstances where the item depicted in the image is situated in a public place. As I have said, it is when the item is not located in a public place that the gap begins.

After 18 years that formulation is well understood by the police and the courts. Proof of its effectiveness lies in the simple fact that during that period we have not seen prosecutions of any journalists or academics who have published reports or books containing such images. That should give us some comfort. Nor have we seen any complaints that such people have been inhibited or discouraged from pursuing their legitimate professional activities by the existence of the Section 13 offence. I have sympathy for the objective behind the amendment but I hope that, for the reasons given, noble Lords will agree that it is not necessary. I hope that having heard the arguments for the Section 12(1A) offence and my assurances about the scope of the offence and the effectiveness of its existing safeguards, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Youth Crime: London

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Before the House gets totally fed up with me, I will tell noble Lords that the Government have given £40 million, and £40 million has come from the Big Lottery Fund, for youth provision and social action. We continue to fund the growth of the very successful National Citizens Service, and £700,000 has gone into the Delivering Differently for Young People programme.

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

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests. There has been a cut to policing in real terms since 2010-11. In London, as the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, mentioned, 81 youth centres have closed, 800 full-time youth workers are no longer there and there has been a £39 million cut in youth services in the capital since 2011. Does the Minister not accept that these spending reductions have a direct effect on the ability of the police and local authorities to tackle knife crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have talked a lot in this place about police funding. It is important to note that public investment in policing has grown by over £1 billion from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in 2018-19, including investment in counterterrorism policing, local policing and funding for national programmes. There are other funding streams, including the £175 million police transformation fund and special grants.

Sexual Offences

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not think that what has happened here is political correctness; I think that, given the sheer number of people involved in the types of crimes they committed against some very vulnerable girls, it has taken time to bring this case forward—and, of course, the case was delayed for reasons outside the CPS’s control. It is really important, for successful prosecutions to be brought, that full rigour goes into the investigation and subsequent prosecutions.

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

My Lords, first, I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to the police and to the bravery of the victims of these appalling crimes. By coming forward, they have highlighted this evil, had the criminals brought to justice and protected other young girls from becoming victims. Compare that to the irresponsible actions of those who risked collapsing the trial. What work are the Government undertaking to understand the full scope and size of this crime, of these offences, in our country? Without understanding that, it will be very hard to effectively resource both prevention and investigations, and to bring all the perpetrators to justice.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point: unless we can understand the root causes of this, it is very difficult to tackle it. There have been several similar cases of the abuse of children. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said:

“I will not let cultural or political sensitivities get in the way of understanding the problem ... I’ve instructed my officials to explore the … characteristics of these types of gangs and if the evidence suggests that there are cultural factors that may be driving this type of offending, then I will take action”.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised an issue about which Act would take precedence in the event of a conflict between this Bill—when it becomes an Act—and the Data Protection Act 2018. His amendment makes it clear that, in the case of a conflict, the DPA, along with the GDPR, would take precedence. That seems quite sensible: it gives us certainty on the matter, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord. I support his amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their points. There has been nothing in our own domestic law that requires a UK provider to comply with an overseas order. There will therefore be no conflict with domestic law if a CSP decides that complying with a foreign order would put it in breach of its obligations under the GDPR.

The existence of any conflict with UK data protection law does not have the effect of making the order from the other country invalid. Equally, the existence of the order does not compel the UK CSP to ignore its data protection obligations under UK law. It will be for the CSP on which an order is served to reconcile and comply with all legal obligations it is under. It could apply for the variation or revocation of the order, or use the dispute resolution mechanism that we expect all specific international agreements to include. That said, we do not think that this is likely to be necessary in practice. The GDPR contains several “gateways” which permit the cross-border transfer of personal data, including in response to a request or order from overseas law enforcement.

I know the noble Lord’s concerns about data protection, and I absolutely sympathise with him. We have discussed this before, and I think that ultimately we all want the same thing: adequate protection for the privacy rights of individuals. I hope that my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord that the Bill does not in any way threaten data protection rights, which are robustly protected by existing legislation. UK CSPs will continue to be bound by the GDPR and the Data Protection Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw Amendment 12.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for moving his regret Motion. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Haskel, who first alerted your Lordships to this issue. The House is also grateful, not only on this issue but generally, for the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises every instrument that comes before Parliament. It is able to get into what a particular instrument does and then, by engaging with a Minister and through its reports, bring matters of concern to the attention of the House.

Covert surveillance is an important tool that is used to provide the evidence needed to prevent and detect crime. It is necessary, as there may be no other way to get the intelligence needed. Having said that, we have to have proper codes of practice in place and, where that involves young people under the age of 18—who are still legally children—it is of particular concern and importance. We have to ensure that children’s rights are protected and that there are adequate protections in place to take care of their physical and mental well-being and that proper risk assessment is undertaken.

The regret Motion before us rightly expresses regret that organisations concerned with human rights and the welfare of children were not consulted about the decision to extend the maximum length of juvenile covert human intelligence sources authorisations from one month to four months. The Home Office certainly got its presentation of this change wrong. It used terms such as “administrative convenience”, which does nothing to reassure Members that the Government have got the balance right here. What should be of paramount importance is the welfare of the child being used as a covert intelligence source.

As we have heard, this issue was debated in the Moses Room in July—a debate led by my noble friend Lord Haskel—and during that debate I posed a number of questions to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I shall pose some more today. I hope she is able to give more reassurance to the House when she responds to the debate shortly.

Can the Minister explain carefully why the decision was taken to extend the term from one month to four months? Can she tell the House how the Government have satisfied themselves that these proposals satisfy Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the United Kingdom ratified in 1991? Can she say how she has satisfied herself that the safeguarding and protection of the children concerned while they work as covert human intelligence sources is delivered? I am sure that she would not have brought this here if she were not personally satisfied.

Moving on to risk assessments, can the Minister tell the House how the rights of the child are protected? Can she outline what specific training or expertise a police officer or other security professional would have in respect of understanding the needs and rights of the child? In what circumstances would it be acceptable for someone who could represent the interests of the young person to not be present during meetings with the handler?

Can the Minister also deal with the issue of consent? How do we make sure that the consent is appropriately understood and given, both where the child’s parents or guardians are informed and in those instances where the parents are not informed or aware of what is happening? Indeed, they could be the people the child is seeking to monitor. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, also raised important points that need answering by the Minister when she responds.

In conclusion, this is a very sensitive and important area of policy affecting vulnerable young people in some very difficult circumstances. It is right that the House uses every device available to it to assure itself that the Government have put the correct and adequate protections in place. Again, I thank both my noble friend Lord Haskel for raising this issue in the first place and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling the regret Motion that has enabled us to debate it.

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

I also thank both the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for introducing the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for his work in bringing this issue to the committee’s attention in the first place. He may think that I am not really thanking him, but I am—it is important for your Lordships’ House to discuss these matters, particularly one such as this which has been in force for the past 18 years and only recently amended ever so slightly.

The debate allows me to both reiterate the importance with which the Government view the safeguarding of those small numbers of young people authorised as covert human intelligence sources and restate the enhanced safeguards that support the juvenile CHIS authorisation framework. We have recently strengthened those safeguards further, as noble Lords have mentioned.

I recognise the concern about the power more broadly, which has been remarked on before not just by me but by other noble Lords. The deployment involved is very small—it is unlikely to reach double figures. However, it is not a new concept. The 2000 order and the various iterations of the CHIS code of practice have governed the use of juvenile CHIS for almost two decades, ensuring that where it is necessary to authorise juveniles as CHIS, an enhanced authorisation and risk assessment is applied. I hope that the debate will assure noble Lords that the existing regime and our amendments to provide a legal framework place the welfare of the CHIS as the primary consideration; the interests of the child have been and will be paramount.

I will start by addressing the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me a very similar one—on why we have extended the authorisation for the juvenile CHIS from one month to four months and why we are increasing the period between renewals at a point when CHIS are being deployed in increasingly dangerous situations. Secondly, he asked why, when a monthly review of the case is required in any event, the review could not just continue to consider renewal of the authorisation—that is a question that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has now posed to me twice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has that right or wrong. I will have to come back to him on that point. Just so he does not think I am derelict in my duty, I did ask that question but I will have to come back to him on it.

I turn to the second question, which was not about the changes that we have made but about the existing distinction in the safeguards, where an appropriate adult must be present in all meetings with a juvenile under the age of 16, but not for those aged 16 and 17. The noble Lord compared this with rules around the interview of juveniles under caution, where interviews of all under-18s require an appropriate adult to be present. I point out that 16 and 17 year-olds can absolutely request that somebody be present—a social worker, an appropriate adult or even a lawyer—but it is not mandated. That probably will not satisfy the noble Lord, but the law recognises that parental responsibility diminishes as a child matures. There are therefore a number of areas where the law treats over-16s differently from under-16s. For example, they can apply for their own passports or join the military.

Internal police guidance on deploying juvenile CHIS contains detail on how to safeguard and promote the well-being of the juvenile CHIS, including how to assess their maturity and capacity to give informed consent, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, a requirement to ensure that handlers are properly trained to deal with young people—they have day-to-day responsibility for the CHIS and must raise any issues surrounding matters including the safety and welfare of the CHIS with those responsible for authorising their deployment—and requirements to consider all aspects of safeguarding the young person.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness on that point. Is she saying that the officers concerned get special training in that respect to deal with young people in this situation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes. Any officer dealing with a juvenile will have safeguarding training.

The enhanced risk assessments required before a CHIS is tasked are reviewed and updated throughout the duration of an authorisation, and are also updated after an authorisation is cancelled and where contact is maintained with the CHIS. This applies to all juvenile CHISs, regardless of age, but it really should not be taken that the vulnerability of all those aged under 18 is not taken seriously when considering deployment as a CHIS. Rather, the risk assessments are made on a case-by-case basis by those charged with day-to-day dealings with the CHIS, including on their safety and welfare, and who are charged with relaying this to the authorising officer, who also has a role in this assessment.

In a recent letter to the chair of the JCHR, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, Lord Justice Fulford, provided clarity on what his inspectors considered when inspecting public authorities which have authorised juvenile CHISs, and confirmed that the detailed focus of his inspectors is on the “duty of care”.

Turning to the very specific comparison, I think we are probably talking about a different scenario—one where the juvenile could be charged with an offence, and convicted or given a caution. With a juvenile CHIS, we are talking about a very different scenario. A child would need to give or confirm their consent to take on the role, and is under no obligation or pressure to act as a juvenile CHIS.

The third question raised by the noble Lord, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is how the needs of the specific child are prioritised, particularly with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in mind. The UK ensures that the principles of the convention are considered and realised through the approach taken in legislation and other measures, ensuring that the child’s rights and interests are safeguarded.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On the previous point made by the Minister about there being no pressure put on a young person to act as a CHIS, is it possible, when a young person has come to the attention of the authorities—or may have committed a crime—that it would be suggested to the child that matters would not be proceeded with if they were to act as a CHIS instead?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. It would be unwise for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that that was the case, because I simply do not know. I can find that out. It would be rather cynical to take the view that these children, who are perhaps not perfect in many cases, would be deployed just on the information that officers could get out of them or as a quid pro quo for leniency over other matters in which they may have been found wanting.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am just trying to understand the situation. It would be nice to hear from the noble Baroness at some point—maybe she can write to us. It should obviously always come to the attention of the authorities through various means, such as intelligence. However the authorities come to it, what are the circumstances such young people would find themselves in with the authorities?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly write to the noble Lord on that matter.

The legal framework governing the authorisation and the use of the juvenile CHIS, when taken as a whole, is clearly capable of being exercised in a way which is consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The 2000 order, the supporting guidance provided in the CHIS code of practice and the internal guidance applied by public authorities seeking to use juvenile CHISs, all ensure that the welfare of any juvenile being considered for deployment as a CHIS is the paramount consideration.

Each part of the legislative framework is designed to ensure that the authorisation of a CHIS under the age of 18 is subject to enhanced safeguards, reflecting the need to consider the welfare of the child. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000 requires enhanced risk assessments to accompany any decision to use a juvenile CHIS, which are updated to reflect developments during the course of the deployment. They take into account the physical and psychological welfare of that young person, and are also updated after the deployment if contact is made.

The police will also have regard to their broader safeguarding responsibilities when making these decisions, which was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Indeed, the National Strategy for the Policing of Children and Young People, endorsed and published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in 2015, says:

“It is crucial that in all encounters with the police those below the age of 18 should be treated as children first. All officers must have regard to their safety, welfare and wellbeing”,


as required under Sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Children: Covert Human Intelligence Sources

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for our conversation on this matter. Of course, that would require a change in the legislation, but we consider that this enhanced authorisation, which has been in place for 18 years and approved under the leadership of successive Governments, is robust. It is subject to enhanced safeguards and strong and effective oversight. It should command confidence.

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

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the safety of the child is ensured when they are put in these dangerous situations where serious criminality is suspected of taking place? That can include the children providing information about their parents and other close family members to the authorities.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord asks the right question. The child’s safety remains paramount. Enhanced risk assessments are required before the CHIS is tasked and are reviewed and updated throughout the duration of an authorisation. They are also updated after an authorisation is cancelled where contact with the CHIS is maintained. In the case of children aged 16 to 17, the law recognises that these assessments must be done on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the presence of a responsible adult may or may not be required at that stage.

Windrush

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot second-guess the thinking behind some of the decision-making, but it might be to protect some people’s names. However, as I have just said, the Prime Minister has committed to publication, whether in a redacted form or not.

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

My Lords, on the compensation scheme that is out for consultation, has the Home Office considered emergency payments to those who have been treated wrongfully and unfairly? I am thinking particularly of those in hardship.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord brings this up again and it is an important point, because we have heard anecdotal evidence of hardship. The Home Secretary recognises that. His immediate priority has been to help some of those affected to establish their immigration status but also to support people in advance of the compensation scheme being put in place. Where there is an immediate need—he outlined such a case to me the other day—we are supporting people to access housing and benefits and deal with immediate problems while removing immigration obstacles to their finding work. In addition, the noble Lord might want to know that we have signed an agreement with Citizens Advice, which can provide some of the professional bespoke advice that people might need.

Immigration Policy: Children and Parents

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which the implementation of immigration policy has led to the separation of children from their parents.

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

My Lords, the family Immigration Rules and the policy on exceptional circumstances provide a clear basis for considering applications to remain in the UK. Individuals with no leave to remain are expected to leave voluntarily. We may enforce their removal if they do not. Our family separation guidance makes clear that staff must consider the best interests of any children, including their needs and caring arrangements, before taking enforcement action.

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

My Lords, how many children are presently separated from their parents or carers in the UK as a result of decisions taken by the immigration authorities to implement the policies of the Government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am afraid that I cannot provide the noble Lord with that exact detail, as it is not available. However, we have done dip sampling in the cases of 84 foreign national offenders from July 2017 to July 2018, and two family separations were detected. It is not clear whether they were temporary or whether we were seeking to remove one parent from the UK.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raises three important amendments here and I look forward to the Minister’s response. She is right that, as written, the provision appears to be very wide in scope, and it would be better to have more clarification. The terms “in all the circumstances” and “an offence” are very wide, and it would be good to hear what they are. As the noble Baroness said, it would appear that there could be a never-ending fishing expedition, which in itself would not serve justice. I look forward to hearing the response to the very valid points raised.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their points. I turn to the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made—I am sorry, he did not speak, so it must have been the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; they do not look anything like each other. Where material is provided in compliance with a PACE production order, police are in principle able to use that material where it is relevant and necessary for another policing purpose, including a separate criminal investigation. The intention behind the overseas production order is basically to replicate the powers available to law enforcement under current domestic production powers. Under the Bill, the same will apply to electronic data obtained under overseas production orders. This ensures that law enforcement officials can use their independent discretion to consider what is appropriate to help with the conduct of their duties.

The effect of Amendment 32 would be to restrict the retention of the evidence produced in respect of an overseas production order to the offence for which the order was made. The Bill’s provisions do not dictate when an officer should apply for a new production order in respect of data received that is to be used for a different purpose. Again, this is consistent with existing practice. The Bill simply makes the same provisions in relation to orders which can be served on an entity outside the UK, where a relevant agreement is in place, as in relation to orders which can be served on a company based here.

It will always be appropriate for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to consider what can be used in an investigation and for evidential purposes. They will assess the likelihood of challenge in court where evidence produced in relation to a production order is adduced for a separate criminal offence. That is already their bread and butter. In all likelihood in those situations an appropriate officer may well decide that it would be more appropriate for a new production order to be obtained for the material produced that points to a separate offence.

A question was asked about guidance. The Government will consider whether it is necessary to produce policy guidance to assist an appropriate officer in these circumstances but, given that the Bill reflects existing practice in relation to production, I do not see that it brings about a new challenge for our law enforcement or prosecution professionals and I do not think it is necessary to mandate it in the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That was a very long explanation of why the clause is as it is and I thank the Minister for it. She referred to how this in effect mirrors what we have in PACE. Is guidance provided on PACE?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There is a code of practice for PACE. We will look at whether some guidance is necessary for this replicated process.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for saying she will look at those points. If we are mirroring PACE then we can mirror the guidance as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord. I recall our debates in the Chamber on the GDPR and how important it is to get the adequacy certificate to make sure that we are compliant with all these regulations, and we cannot put that at risk in subsequent legislation. I am looking for the Minister to address that point. The noble Lord has raised a very valid point. We need to get this right before this legislation reaches the statute book.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the point that he has made, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for backing it up. I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about countries that fall short of our data protection laws. We are probably at the top of the EU league table in terms of the rigour of our data protection legislation—I can think of some countries that might fall into the category that the noble Lord talks about—but the Bill will put on an equal footing the means by which UK law enforcement officers or prosecutors can apply to the court for access to electronic evidence, irrespective of whether the data is held by an entity based in the UK or based elsewhere in the world. UK law enforcement will be bound by the very robust Data Protection Act 2018 when processing personal data obtained pursuant to an overseas production order or where access has been given to data pursuant to such an order.

The noble Lord asked what discussions have been taking place. Those discussions are above my pay grade. I have not been involved in them personally but I know that they will have been going on, certainly in the background. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point about the adequacy decision. He also asked how we will ensure that data is used for the correct purposes. That is all part and parcel of what our Data Protection Act provides for. I am absolutely convinced that we in the UK have the right data protection safeguards in place and, when it comes to data protection and other countries, we will ensure that the same rigour is in place in the country with which we have made an agreement.

Clause 6(4)(c) states that an overseas production order,

“has effect in spite of any restriction”.

The noble Lord asked whether that means that UK CSPs do not need to comply with data protection. Having effect “in spite of any restriction” relates only to the effect of an order served on a CSP outside the UK, so the restrictions can only be in UK law, as we obviously cannot seek to override laws in other countries.

It might be helpful to reiterate that, when making a production order, a judge must consider the requirements set out in Clause 4. In doing so, he or she will need to consider whether the evidence is of substantial value to the investigation or proceedings and whether it is in the public interest to produce the information, balancing these factors with the right to privacy. It stands to reason that the more sensitive the data, the harder it will be for the applicant to justify the public interest test. I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to put it into the Bill that, in cases of dispute, the GDPR shall prevail. Is the noble Baroness saying that this is implied anyway, or not necessary? If we end up with this on the statute book as it is now, and the matter of which Act applies were to become a matter of dispute in the courts, that is not where we would want to be.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord, but I am saying there would be an underlying basis for data protection, which is the Data Protection Act. Therefore, while there are many things we could put on the faces of many Bills, it is not necessary in this case—we already have laws governing the protection of data.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

With that comment, is the Minister saying that, actually, GDPR will prevail?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, I am.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

To deal with the first point on the death penalty, I thought I had made it clear but clearly I have not. We have meetings scheduled and I would like to discuss it further before Report. I hoped that I had explained that the OSJA process was effectively a risk assessment process that sought protections and risk assessment on such things as the death penalty and other human rights issues, but I would be very grateful if we could discuss that before Report. On the other issue, that of compliance, UK companies are not compelled by UK law but they may be compelled by the other jurisdiction—that is the point that I made at Second Reading—depending on the country in question.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

It is not only my noble friend Lord Rosser who is confused about the death penalty, as I am confused as well. It is not just that the Minister has not been clear with us; it also involves some of her right honourable friends in the department and the comments they have made. We need to address the problem there. Comments are made but then if we look at the policy on paper, they do not add up. That is the problem we have.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I, not least, look forward to the discussion that we are going to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has done her usual forensic job of going through the Bill and done a service to the Grand Committee. It is important that we are clear about what we are agreeing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. It is right that Amendment 5 makes it clear that we are talking about the treaties which are subject to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It is a sensible move.

Amendment 6 is a probing amendment at this stage. What is meant by participation? If you are a party to something, then there is what you are participating in, so clearly the Government think that there are two different things. It will be good to hear the Minister’s view on the difference between those two things and why they both need to be in the Bill. I am sure that “form of a treaty” needs to be in the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 8 ensures that whatever regulation is agreed will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. Again, I think that is important. Will the Minister confirm that the Government would do that anyway and, if so, say why it is not in the Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their points. I turn first to Amendment 5. Clause 1 outlines the circumstances in which an overseas production order can be made. This includes that an application must specify a designated international co-operation arrangement. This is defined in Clause 1(5), to which the noble Baroness has proposed her amendment. The amendment would ensure that only treaties as defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 would be capable of designation as an international co-operation arrangement under the Bill.

The definition of “designated international co-operation arrangement” in Clause 1(5) has been drafted to take into account that there may be circumstances in which a relationship with another country is established which would not attract the procedures set out in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Those procedures require that, prior to ratification, a treaty is to be laid by a Minister of the Crown before Parliament for 21 sitting days without either House having resolved that it should not be ratified. The process does not apply to certain types of treaties including those covered by Section 5 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which include treaties that amend the founding EU treaties.

Also, some treaties can come into force on signature and do not require formal ratification and are therefore not subject to the Part 2 procedure. The definition of “treaty” in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act also excludes instruments made under a treaty, so EU instruments would not be capable of being designated. Without necessarily knowing which countries the UK may choose to operate this arrangement with, the clause had been intentionally drafted to be wider than the definition of “treaty” under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to ensure that the UK can enter into arrangements with international partners where both have committed to remove any barriers to compliance for an overseas production order. In reality, it is unlikely for either the UK or another country to commit to complying with orders that have extraterritorial scope without acknowledging this through a formalised agreement or arrangement.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the point about standard clauses in all international agreements. This is a new approach to cross-border data access for law enforcement purposes. Actually, there are no templates to follow. If she means something different by “standard clauses”, perhaps we could have a further discussion. We are working with the US to develop an agreement as a matter of priority and we hope that this will act as the template for future arrangements with other appropriate countries.

On Amendment 6, the definition of an international co-operation arrangement is expansive to account for a situation where the UK itself is a contracting party to an arrangement, in the form of a bilateral treaty or multilateral convention, as well as a situation where the UK is a member of a supranational body and that body is a contracting party to such an arrangement in its own right, or has created its own internal rules which apply to its members. In the latter case, those rules would be the international arrangement in which the UK participates. Current membership of the EU is a good example whereby, in many cases, the EU—not the individual member states—is the party to an arrangement between it and a non-EU country. Further, the EU creates internal rules in the form of regulations and directives in which the UK participates as a member state. In both these scenarios, the UK participates by virtue of its membership of the EU. I hope that is as clear as mud to everyone.

I accept that with the UK’s imminent departure from the EU, a scenario in which the UK participates indirectly in an arrangement through its membership of a supranational organisation is less likely to happen. However, until that time and as long as the UK remains an EU member state, legislating along these lines recognises the status quo as now, which is that the UK can be a participant to an arrangement without necessarily being a party to it.

On Amendment 38, I refer noble Lords to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee memorandum, which sets out our justification for the approach that we have taken. In the memorandum, the Government state that:

“The Bill specifies in full what the implications of a designation are, and does not permit the implementation into UK law of any international arrangement in relation to the investigation or prosecution of offences, but only one that reflects the terms of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that an order is only served where it meets the requirements of the designated international co-operation arrangement … Further, most international arrangements entered into will be subject to the procedure in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, so Parliament will have had an opportunity to scrutinise the arrangement before it is ratified by the Government … Accordingly, since any exercise of the power is subject to the safeguards set out in the Bill and Parliament will already have had an opportunity to scrutinise the arrangements, the negative procedure is proposed”.


For the purposes of outgoing requests which the Bill is to be used for, any international co-operation arrangement would set out the terms of our UK law enforcement being able to make requests from another country. Although the terms will set out the reciprocal process, the arrangement will also be designated under regulations made under Section 52 of the IP Act 2016, which is how the UK will recognise any international arrangement for an incoming request. Regulations under Section 52 are also subject to the negative procedure, so the approach taken here is consistent. With those words, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness might feel happy to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister very much as I have learned something today about participants, which is useful and very good. I think the Minister was saying that Amendment 5, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was too restrictive—that it would remove other treaties and arrangements. Can she maybe say a bit about what would then be the parameters if the Bill stays as it is? If I accept her point about it being too narrow, what parameters are the Government actually asking for? It is important that we are clear what we are passing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Put simply, I think the parameters we are discussing are that there might be circumstances in which a relationship with another country is established, which would not attract the procedures set out in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. In my view, that would therefore appear to be the scope of this. The noble Lord does not look entirely convinced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. In response, I am sure that the noble Baroness will explain to us why the Government deem it necessary to take this wider power and not restrict it, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has sought to do, to officers from wherever who are actually enforcing law enforcement functions. On the face of it this seems a very sensible amendment, and I look forward to hearing why the Government think they need this wider power in this context.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that this amendment will not require any further meetings or probing on Report. The Bill provides that an appropriate officer is able to apply for an overseas production order where an indictable offence has been committed, where proceedings in relation to that indictable offence have been instituted or investigated, or where the order is sought for the purpose of terrorist investigations. Therefore, the clause is already limited to officers who are exercising law enforcement functions. In fact, the clause already makes clear that where a listed appropriate officer has functions other than for law enforcement purposes, it is only where the appropriate officer is exercising functions in relation to the investigation or prosecution of criminal conduct that they may apply for an overseas production order. For example, a person appointed by the FCA can conduct both civil and criminal investigations and the clause ensures that they can apply for an overseas production order only in connection with criminal investigations or prosecutions. I hope that that provides reassurance.

Windrush

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer given in the other place by the Immigration Minister earlier today, outlining what the Government are doing to deal with this frankly appalling scandal. I have a number of questions for the noble Baroness. What action is the task force taking to help individuals who have been deported to return to the UK, and does that include paying their travel costs? Why have only 18 apologies been issued so far? Surely everybody wronged by this scandal should receive an apology. Finally, can she assure the House that the Home Office has taken the required action to ensure that no new victims of this scandal are being created today and as we go forward?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord asked about the actions of the task force to help people to return to the UK. The task force will help where it can and in whatever way is appropriate in a particular case. I cannot give the detail as every case will be different. The noble Lord also asked why only 18 people had been apologised to. Of all the people whom the task force is considering, those are the 18 most likely to have suffered detriment. Eleven of those people left voluntarily; clearly, they are being helped to return to this country if they wish to do so, in whatever way might be appropriate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We were all shocked at the death of those three people. Without talking about the individual cases, I know that two were removed post 2010 and one previously. None was detained and all left the country voluntarily, but that does not diminish in any way the sadness at the fact that they have died. The whole House will share the noble Baroness’s shock. She gave some descriptions of the approach of the Home Office to the Windrush generation and other immigration cases. As I have said to her and to the House before, it is worth bearing in mind that the new Home Secretary made it very clear when he arrived in post that the new approach would be to treat people as people, not as cases—a more humane approach. I hope that, since he became Home Secretary, he has demonstrated his commitment both to the Windrush generation and to that more humane environment, including by dropping the term “hostile environment”.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, she did not answer the last part of my question. I will not pursue it here, but can she confirm that she will write to me on that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Was it about why the Home Secretary apologised only to those 18 people? Will the noble Lord remind me?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I asked whether we are absolutely clear that we are not creating new cases for the future, because that would be the worst thing that could happen.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I apologise to the noble Lord; I did not write that bit down. It is the first day back—I am just getting into the flow of it. On whether it will ever happen again, the “lessons learned” review will teach us a lot, and the independent assurance review of the whole process will be very helpful. All these things have taught all political parties why this whole process, which took place over successive generations, should never happen again. It also teaches us something about identity assurance and the importance of getting that right, certainly as we leave the EU and in the future, so that people are not caught out by these unintended consequences of what was originally a welcoming approach to our Windrush community, whose work over the years we value.

ONS New Crime Statistics

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Friday 20th July 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we have seen an 11% increase in recorded crime, police officer numbers at a record low, only 9% of recorded crime resulting in anyone being charged or summoned to court, offences involving knives and sharp instruments up 16%, gun crime up 2% and murder and manslaughter up 12%. These are appalling figures. Will the noble Baroness tell the House what responsibility the Government accept for letting the public down so badly?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have said that the Government recognise the genuine increase in serious, violent crimes. I have talked about our serious violence strategy. This very week my honourable friend in another place, Victoria Atkins, will be going out to schools to talk about the initiative #knifefree and the importance of young people not getting drawn into knife crime. We have a number of initiatives around this, including Operation Sceptre. I have outlined not only the funding settlement for this year but the Home Secretary’s priority for the next spending round, because he recognises the sheer strain that police have been put under—the changing face of the types of crime that people are committing and, of course, the strain that they have been under in terms of terrorist attacks. I will say something about police numbers in relation to serious violence. At the national level, most types of serious violence were far higher in 2000, with higher police numbers compared with the 1950s and 1960s, when police numbers were far lower. That is not to denigrate the points made about the police and the pressure they are under. I take this opportunity to thank the police for the very important work they do in keeping our communities safe.

Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Under the current system it is only one month, whereas under the new system it would be up to four months but with a review every single month—and, yes, by the same senior officer.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Maybe I am being daft but I do not see the difference.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I understand it. I apologise to noble Lords. The current system is limited to one month. The new system would be up to four months, but with a review every month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I have the answer now. Removing the requirement for the activity to be authorised at monthly intervals removes the need for investigators to push for early results to justify re-authorisation—that is what I understand—thereby allowing the juvenile CHIS to be managed in a way that better suits the long-term investigation and reduces the risks to the young person.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This goes to the point about administrative convenience that was made at the start. It may make it more convenient for the officer concerned, but how does it benefit the child?

Immigration: Hostile Environment

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, whatever the name, hostile or compliant, with the introduction of the Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016 by the Prime Minister, people lawfully here in the United Kingdom have been treated shamefully. How will the suspension work? In three months’ time, do the Government intend to share the data that would have been shared over that three-month period, when the temporary pause comes to an end? What are they doing to ensure that the data are accurate, as the errors in data shared leave the injustice highlighted by the scandal?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will know that it is not simply the 2014 and 2016 Acts that have led to what is now called the compliant environment. He will recall that, back in 1997, right to work checks were introduced. Of course, there have been right to rent checks and addition on addition of compliant environment checks to ensure that people who are in this country to work and live are so lawfully. So it is not just the 2014 and 2016 Acts. Over time, identity assurance has increasingly been a requirement.

As for the paused proactive data-sharing arrangements, we have paused it as he says with other government departments and delivery partners on data for all nationalities over 30 years old, which takes us back to 1988, for a period of three months. My right honourable friend this morning undertook to make an assessment of it from that point. That covers HMRC, the DWP and the DVLA. We have also gone further with access to financial services measures and significantly restricted proactive data sharing with banks and building societies via Cifas for persons subject to deportation action due to criminal activity.

Did the noble Lord ask another question?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Yes, I did, but—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

The Home Office Committee is reported as saying that, unless the Home Office is overhauled, the scandal will happen again for another group of people. For example, there is nothing in this Statement about the fact that officials in the Home Office are being put under pressure by being given targets for removals from the UK. How can officials use their discretion and compassion if they have to deport another 10 people by the end of the week?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will have heard the previous Home Secretary talk about previous targets for removal, which there were, and which had stopped for this year—they had been ceased. There were no targets for the deportation of criminals. But the noble Lord got to the nub of the point. The Home Office and the new Home Secretary have said that we need to take a far more humane approach to dealing with people—because these are people and not just numbers. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the way in which the Windrush issue has been dealt with under the leadership of the new Home Secretary has been more than humane. He has put a prime focus on ensuring that anybody inadvertently removed by the compliant environment measures that were in place are proactively sought, and remedial action will be taken to ensure that, through the compensation scheme, any hardship they have suffered will be recompensed in due course. The noble Lord is right in the sense that the culture needs to be changed—the new Home Secretary talked about that as well—to understand and recognise that we are dealing with human beings here.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

If nobody else is coming in, may I ask the Minister to look at the question I asked her a few moments ago and write to me? I was asking about the data. If she could write to me, that would be very much appreciated.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I apologise to the noble Lord that I answered an entirely different question from the one he asked. I hope the House found it helpful anyway. I shall of course write to him on the data.

Visit of President Trump: Policing

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I join the Minister in appreciating the incredible work that our police and other partner agencies do to keep us safe. I fully support the right of people to protest peacefully while President Trump is here in the United Kingdom. It is such a contrast to how President Obama was received a few years ago. I recall the wonderful address he gave to both Houses in Westminster Hall and the time he took to leave the Hall because he was talking to Members of both Houses.

With police budgets under pressure and gun, knife and other violent crime rising, it is important that any requests for additional grant funding are considered in the context of the pressure police budgets are already under and the duty to keep citizens safe. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I most certainly can. As the noble Lord will know, there are established processes for PCCs to make an application for additional funding if they face unexpected and exceptional expenditure—and I am sure this is such expenditure—which would otherwise create a serious threat to the force’s financial stability and its capacity to deliver normal policing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Police officers who work in the line of duty to protect the public should absolutely be given decent accommodation. I shall quote the NPCC’s spokesman:

“Some of the accommodation pictured today for officers supporting the major operation for the US Presidential visit is not acceptable and below the standard of other accommodation for this operation”.


I understand that Essex Police is working at speed to resolve this and to ensure that the affected officers will be decently accommodated. The spokesman also thanked the officers who raised this issue because what the noble Lord outlined is utterly unacceptable.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister set out the context of how PCCs can apply for additional funding for the costs associated with policing the President’s visit to the UK. Does she think that the conditions highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, are a prime example of where funding should be brought in quickly and urgently to deal with those issues?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It certainly could be an example of where costs were not expected but were incurred. Therefore PCCs would be eligible to apply for extra funding.

Saddleworth and Tameside Moors

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Question in the other place yesterday. I join her in expressing my thanks to the firefighters, the Army, the local authorities and others for their tireless work in this extreme and hostile environment. Will she join me in condemning anyone involved in setting fires in the area as dangerous, irresponsible idiots, and confirm that the Government will give any assistance required to bring the perpetrators to justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I most certainly will, using exactly the same words as the noble Lord, although I shall not utter them. I understand that one arrest has been made, but he is right: it is an act of the most terrible folly to endanger both the countryside and, potentially, the lives of people and animals.

Immigration: Hostile Environment

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was about to go on to say that the Home Office is performing a check to ensure that no one is having study restrictions placed on them inappropriately. I hope that she is satisfied by that.

The noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s report on the right to rent. We welcome that report. It made four recommendations, and noble Lords referred to recommendation 3 on the consultative panel. It will be reconvened and we will ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, to continue to co-chair it. Somewhere in my pile of documents, I have the make-up of the panel. It will be co-chaired by the Immigration Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I said. It will be made up of Crisis, Shelter, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, bodies representing landlords, agents and local authorities—those people with housing expertise.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way; it is very kind. We have raised this point before, but why are the Government not going with the right to rent committee? Instead, they have come back with the previous committee and are not going to include the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants or the anti-slavery commissioner. They would be important to include for their expertise.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Given that the noble Lord worked through the housing Bill with me, I hope that he would agree that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is a very experienced member of your Lordships house in the area of housing. Having the Immigration Minister co-chairing, as he asked, will lend great credence to the panel. I am sure he would agree that the bodies I mentioned are the type that we would want represented on the panel to ensure its housing expertise. I pay tribute to the groups that he mentioned, but they are not necessarily in and of themselves housing experts, although they have expertise in the area of immigration and slavery.

I must now turn to the Windrush generation, because I want to spend some time on that. I again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, and all those from the Windrush generation who came here quite legally to help to rebuild this country after the war. The Government, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all said that the Government deeply regret what has happened and have made it a key priority to resolve the problems that have arisen and to ensure that it does not happen again. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in paying tribute to his friend and all that he achieved in his life.

The Home Secretary has commissioned an independent lessons learned review, which will look at how members of the Windrush generation came to be entangled in measures designed for illegal immigrants, why it was not spotted sooner—this has been going on for decades; it is not a new thing—and why the right corrective measures will now be put in place. The review will take into account the experiences of those involved and wider reflections on Home Office culture as a whole. We have established the Windrush Scheme task force, which is working with members of the Windrush generation to resolve their status and ensure that they obtain the documents they need to evidence it.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary also issued a call for evidence to inform consultation on a compensation scheme for members of the Windrush generation who have been wrongfully impacted by immigration measures. That call for evidence closed last Friday and we are currently analysing the responses. Simultaneously, we have strengthened the checking services provided to employers, landlords and public service providers to ensure that we are not denying work, housing, benefits or services to those who are here lawfully. We will be providing regular updates to the Home Affairs Committee on the progress of that work. Our focus now is on putting right what was so wrong in the past.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me for an update on Windrush figures. As of 10 June, the task force has received 20,145 calls. It has referred 5,750 for call-backs and completed 5,740 call-backs and issued 1,651 documents.

We owe it to the public to ensure that we maintain effective controls on immigration and have measures in place to protect taxpayer-funded services. The compliant environment forms an important part of those measures.

The noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Taverne, asked about tier 2 visas and for an update on NHS workers and doctors. As they will know, because it has been widely reported in the media this morning, the Home Secretary is currently reviewing that and he will make an announcement on it very shortly. I will be able to say more after the announcement, so I hope that the noble Lords will bear with me.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, talked about a specific case. He will understand that I will not discuss it on the Floor of the House, but I will write to him about it. He also talked about HMRC and people being refused resettlement on the basis of their tax returns. This is not about people making minor tax errors. We are now able to check what applicants told us in the past about their self-employment and compare it to what they have told HMRC for the same period. There is a clear pattern of abuse where, more often than not, the self-employed earnings used to claim points in the tier 1 application have been £10,000 higher than the self-employed earnings reported to HMRC. Where employment circumstances do not add up and applicants claim to have been working in a full-time low-paid manual job while simultaneously earning very high amounts from self-employed work for which the evidence is weak, we must consider paragraph 322(5), to which the noble Lord referred, and refuse the application where the evidence shows that the individual has not played by the rules and their character and conduct is such that they should not be granted settlement in the UK.

Before the noble Lord intervenes on me, I will make just one more point, because he then may not need to intervene. I will write to him on the case he raised separately and in no way am I saying that what I am outlining is anything to do with that case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I shall write to the noble Baroness on that, as I know it is completely different.

On the point about limbo, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jones—and before the clock gets to “21”—when an application is made during the period of extant leave, leave is extended by statute until the application is determined. Where the right to rent or work checks are required, the Home Office can confirm entitlement to an employer or a landlord.

I have run out of time. I am terribly sorry.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I can give the Minister some clarification. The debate started at 11.39 am, and as it is a three-hour debate, there are 20 more minutes left.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I noted from the guidance that I had 20 minutes to speak; in fact Ministers rarely get more than 20 minutes to wind up, but I will continue if the House does not object.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also asked about visa performance. Obviously he knows I cannot comment on an individual case, but the majority of UKVI decisions are made within the established service standards. In complicated cases it can take longer, and if so, we write to advise when a decision is likely. The noble Lord will no doubt tell me that he knows of cases where we have not written in a timely fashion. We have introduced a range of measures since 2010 to improve the quality of decision-making in UKVI, including training and mentoring programmes for new caseworkers, as well as wide quality-assurance processes. He also raised the issue of the health surcharge. Applications for indefinite leave to remain are not required to pay the health surcharge.

The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made the point that Home Office staff should have training in race relations. There is mandatory training for Home Office staff on race relations and discrimination—and unconscious bias, for that matter. It is mandated by the Cabinet Office for all civil servants and is a core element of the Civil Service code. The noble Baroness also made a point about stopping illegal migrants coming to the UK. They are not just people coming to the UK without permission, but those who remain unlawfully when their leave expires. It is worth mentioning that people here illegally are some of the most vulnerable people in the country. They are not protected as UK taxpayers but are vulnerable to people traffickers, and endure some of the less savoury elements of exploitation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about victims of crime. There is no obligation for the police to report victims of crime to immigration authorities but they have the power to do so, and we are working closely with the police to ensure that victims of trafficking are supported. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about statistics on illegal migrants. He will know that by their very nature, it is very difficult to produce statistics on illegal migrants.

I thank all noble lords who have taken part in the debate.

Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the point. I am sure that we will get better at collation of data and disaggregation of data in the future. Of course, UNHCR then refers the cases for resettlement to the UK, so it makes a judgment—but I am sure that some sort of statistical assessment by ourselves would be useful.

The resettlement process relies on UNHCR to undertake identity and nationality checks when registering cases as refugees. The report acknowledges that UNHCR’s screening processes are very effective in this regard. The dossier approach provides UNHCR with flexibility and allows people to be resettled more quickly. The department will continue to monitor and assess UNHCR processes through assurance work, including whether to trial additional interviewing, as part of the commitment to keep processes under review and our approach to security dynamic.

To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, any wholesale change to the ways of working would need to be weighed up against the costs and benefits. This will be taken into account in future resettlement planning. The department will review internal processes in terms of the documentation required to facilitate the issuing of UK visas in resettlement cases.

In reaching its determination that an individual has met the criteria required of the 1951 Refugee Convention, UNHCR has conducted its own assessment of credibility, which we rely upon. UNHCR is well versed in this area. Its resettlement handbook, its refugee status determination guide and its own internal standard operating procedures provide clear guidance to its caseworkers on credibility assessment. In addition, it has produced guidance on credibility assessments for EU asylum systems.

UNHCR’s position on DNA testing is that it should be done only:

“where serious doubts remain after all other types of proof have been examined”.

The Government take regard of UNHCR’s view on this and will commission DNA testing where it is considered appropriate.

The inspector’s report recommended that the Home Office should, through monitoring, analysis and evaluation, and calling on the expertise of others as appropriate, determine what constitutes best practice at each stage of the resettlement process, as well as producing, and updating as necessary, the scheme’s guidance documents, ensuring that they are comprehensive and coherent and that they drive towards consistent best practice. It set out a list of issues that this should cover and this recommendation was partially accepted by the Home Office. In some instances, this is because clear guidance already exists and the Government have a clear and established rationale for the process as it stands.

The Home Office already has a monitoring and evaluation process for the VPRS, which is well under way. This includes a monitoring framework containing seven high-level integration outcome areas, with a detailed set of indicators beneath each area. Early integration outcome data on a considerable number of refugees resettled under the VPRS has already been captured and a detailed analysis undertaken.

That early integration outcome data has already been shared with strategic migration partnerships, which were encouraged to pass it on to local authorities to promote continued engagement with the underlying data collection exercise—in which local authorities are playing a really valuable role—and encourage a focus on how services are being delivered and whether they might be adapted to further support refugees’ integration. Service delivery is also a key focus of the comprehensive qualitative evaluation being conducted by Ipsos MORI, and the department is very keen to share the output of its work with partners once available.

The Government do not accept that there are no processes in place for dealing with referrals of families of six or more and those which are too complex or difficult to deal with on paper. The department does accept, however, that these processes could be clearer and more comprehensive, and it will make sure that this is immediately addressed in the standard operating procedures.

In the report, the chief inspector suggests that the Home Office should consider the treatment of pregnant women, including how their resettlement might be expedited to avoid “fit to fly” concerns—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Where practicable, existing processes seek to ensure that resettlement takes place while those who are pregnant are fit to fly and able to travel, but a number of factors will impact on the feasibility of this—for example, an individual’s willingness to undergo a TB screening X-ray. Having been pregnant, I can understand that people might be wary of that. However, the department will strengthen internal guidance and staff training on how to deal with cases that involve pregnant women to further emphasise that there should not be an automatic assumption that they should not travel. The Government do not accept that cases involving pregnant women should be expedited or prioritised before other vulnerable cases simply on the basis of pregnancy. Cases that involve a pregnancy will be prioritised only where the UNHCR categorises them as urgent or as an emergency.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The report suggests that people should not move and I do not understand why that is the case. I understand why resettlement in these cases might be expedited but why should such people not travel?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The point I am making is the opposite of that. Where people are fit to fly, they should be able to fly. Pregnancy in and of itself does not make someone vulnerable, and a case involving pregnancy will be prioritised only where the UNHCR categorises it as urgent or as an emergency. In other words, if a woman is in an unwell state, as opposed to just pregnant—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I get that and that is very helpful. Maybe I am wrong but the report suggests the reverse—that there is an automatic decision that people should not travel—and that seems perverse.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will just repeat what I said—it is written down. Where practicable, existing processes seek to ensure that resettlement takes place while those who are pregnant are fit and able to travel. However, if someone refuses a TB screening X-ray, that obviously creates a problem in the process.

I have only one more minute. I will scoot through a few points that noble Lords have made. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about a more local approach. We are very grateful for the ongoing support of local authorities. They have enabled resettlement to take place and provided a vital role. However, before committing to offer resettlement, we have to think about whether they are able to put in place the infrastructure and support to vulnerable people—I think that noble Lords would accept that. They are obviously provided with the funding to enable them to provide vulnerable refugees with a safe environment and the chance to rebuild their lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked about enforced removals and case work. All aspects of our detention and removal processes are subject to external scrutiny from HMIP and independent monitoring boards, and the Home Office is leading a review of our practices, including the use of de-escalation techniques and assessments of individual risk. As part of this review we will engage external partners, including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.

I have run out of time. There are some specific questions that noble Lords have asked, including the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Roberts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall put my answers in writing to them. I thank noble Lords once again for taking part in the debate.

Immigration: “Right to Rent” Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government do not expect landlords to be immigration experts. They are asked to carry out checks based on checks that were previously carried out in the sector. Landlords and agents are reminded in a code of practice of the need to conduct checks against all prospective tenants in a consistent manner. I understand my noble friend’s concerns but I say to him that the list of acceptable documents is broad and it is clear that the checks are not based solely on the examination of passports or immigration documents.

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

My Lords, recommendation 3 of the independent inspector’s report called on the Government to establish,

“a new ‘Right to Rent Consultative Panel’”,

with a remit to tackle the very issues the noble Earl raised in his question. Why have the Government not agreed to that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have agreed to that and we are planning to reconvene the landlords consultative panel this year, in response to the noble Earl’s question.

Home Office: Data Breaches

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that documents sent to the Home Office are not lost; and what plans the department has to refer itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office when data breaches occur.

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

My Lords, following the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation on 25 May, the Home Office has appointed a data protection officer who is reviewing the data breach reporting arrangements across the Home Office. This autumn, the Home Office will begin the rollout of a more complete service that will see customers enter and leave a commercial partner facility in possession of their documents, having had them scanned.

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

My Lords, repeat examples of personal documents being lost by the Home Office are unacceptable and distressing and potentially devastating for the individuals who have had their papers lost. I am pleased to hear of the action being taken by the noble Baroness, but this is not a new problem. It was raised as far back as 2012 in the other place by my right honourable friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. So can the Minister give us further assurances about what is happening about personal papers and things? We cannot have a situation where papers are lost and people are potentially put in devastating situations. I did not quite catch what the Minister said. Can she confirm that in future, if there are any data breaches, the Home Office will refer itself to the ICO?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for asking that question about clarity. He is absolutely right to be concerned about lost documents. It can be devastating for people, particularly for immigration or visa purposes. Following a spike last November, UKVI formed a lost documents working group to identify methods of preventing lost documents. From October 2018, the majority of customers will complete their visa application, for example, at front-end service points in the UK managed by our new commercial partner on behalf of UKVI. The noble Lord asked about breaches. They are normally reported to Home Office security and to the data protection officer.

Police: Firearms

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am certainly happy to give the noble Baroness a longer answer in writing. I will just run through some of the things we have done in recent years. The timeliness of investigations has gone down from 205 working days in the year to April 2017 to 186 working days in the year to April 2018. The IOPC has increased the number of investigations nearly sixfold since 2013-14. In addition, we have doubled the IOPC budget.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has raised a very important issue but can the noble Baroness tell us when she expects the review to conclude? As he said, it has been going now for nearly two and a half years.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We expect that Michael Lockwood will complete his review soon. He is quite new in post and is looking at the Section 22 draft statutory guidance on achieving best evidence in death and serious injury matters, while taking into account the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for armed policing post-incident procedures.

Peru: Visa Requirements

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will personally look into that, but of course there are certain countries where visas are required. As I said to the noble Baroness—I totally understand the point that she makes—we keep these arrangements under review on a regular basis.

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

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that visitors from Peru and all other non-EEA countries are required to complete a landing card on arrival in the UK and present it to a Border Force officer? Can she further tell the House what the Border Force and the Government do with all the data collected?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Lord is absolutely right about landing cards: that anyone from a non-EEA country will present a landing card. Landing cards are for statistical purposes, in the main. They are not stored in a warehouse somewhere, they are destroyed soon after.

Immigration Applications

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right to make the point about the review of tribunal members. I cannot tell him when the last review was, but I certainly will write to him.

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

My Lords, what does the Minister think is the reason for the increasing number of appeals?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I tried to explain that to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It is noticeable that one of the specific reasons for the higher rate of allowed appeals is that many of the cases going through the appeals system are very old. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, the average age of a human rights case is over a year, and appellants have often built up new rights over that time.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 11th May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I rise to make clear that I do not support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Though I like and respect the noble Lord very much, I cannot support him in his amendment today. I very much support the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who set out very carefully and clearly why the amendment should be resisted, as did all other noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lord Dubs.

I would understand the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, a bit more if this Bill were saying that any refugee granted status to stay in this country could bring family members to the UK, but it does not say that at all. It says that they may make an application. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will assure the House that when somebody makes an application to the Home Office, there are some very robust procedures in place. It is not a free for all. I am sure that she will tell the House that, as she will be very well aware of what you have to go through to get an application to enter this country. We discuss matters about the House Office almost every week in this House, and sometimes many times a day. We do not normally say that it is a free for all at the Home Office and that it is far too lenient; we often say quite the contrary about how it operates and can sometimes be very frustrated about the environment at the Home Office, which we think can sometimes be a bit harsh in how it deals with people. I am sure that the Minister will mention more on that.

I also very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, who talked about migrants. I am very well aware that the Minister is a migrant herself; she came from Ireland as a child. I am the eldest son of a migrant; my parents also came from Ireland to find work here. I am sure that we would find that many others here are the children or grandchildren of migrants. Migrants have made a very great contribution to our country. They have done wonderful things here and made our country a much better place. I therefore do not support the amendment today, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it in due course.

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her continued, insistent interest and support for changes to the family reunion immigration rules and I reassure noble Lords that I have listened, and will continue to listen, to the many thoughtful and very compassionate contributions that we hear in this House every day. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the NGOs whose support of the proposed changes have provided valuable insight and constructive challenge on this issue. It should go without saying, but I will repeat it because it is a crucial point: individuals and communities—which of course includes refugees—who have made their home here over generations have always been and will continue to be welcome. They provide an invaluable contribution to our social, cultural and economic life.

It is worth briefly reflecting on how much this Government have done, particularly in the region, but also here at home, to help refugees from countries such as Syria. We are on track to resettle 20,000 refugees from Syria and a further 3,000 children and families from the wider MENA region. We have also committed £2.46 billion of humanitarian aid to the Syrian conflict. I also want to provide some context. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister, said that we have had few grants of leave outside of the rules. If I go back to 2016, after listening to concerns about how the provisions for leave outside the rules operated, we introduced changes to clarify our guidance. This now makes clear that the policy will apply to adult dependent sons or daughters aged over 18 living in conflict zones. Around 65 visas for leave outside of the rules have been granted over the last three years. We are working to ensure that this policy works as well as possible in practice. In 2010, the UK resettled around 750 recognised refugees. Last year alone, we provided 6,000 people with protection under our resettlement schemes, around half of whom were children. These are the most vulnerable families, who have been safely and securely resettled and supported in rebuilding their lives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and other noble Lords said, these are human beings and not numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I recognise totally what the noble Baroness says and what Germany has done. It has caused problems in Germany, and what the Government of the time decided to do has caused integration challenges. But I recognise exactly what the noble Baroness says. I have not mentioned crime or unemployment today; I was simply talking about infrastructure such as public services. I was not going there and I would not want to. I know that the noble Baroness is a very compassionate person indeed.

I have lost my place. I was talking about the extended family reunion rights for British citizens. I will now move on to another point, which I have also lost. I am very glad that the noble Lord is about to intervene.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister said a moment ago that the Bill would allow many thousands of people to come to the country, but all it does is to allow them to make an application. There is quite a distinction between those two things. Perhaps she could confirm that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I also said that it is difficult to estimate. Of course people could make applications, but they would be doing so under the legislation we have passed. However, I made the point that it is quite difficult to get exact numbers.

I recognise the potential implications of the Bill highlighted by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, which would seek to limit the number of family members that could be granted leave under the Bill to a maximum of two. It is a recognition of the wider impacts the Bill may have. As I think every noble Lord mentioned, it could have a divisive effect on families and on the people in the position of having to make those awful decisions. While the current provisions are more narrowly defined in terms of family members who may qualify, this is not limited to a specific number of individuals. I think that is why noble Lords probably took issue with my noble friend’s amendment. This clearly demonstrates the complexities around this issue and why it requires careful consideration, which is what the Government are doing.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford talked about the Home Office being corrupt, which is quite a strong allegation. He then moved on to the capacity of the Home Office—what has the Home Office done to improve vetting and recruitment procedures? The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, helpfully pointed out that for anyone to get through the Home Office procedures involves a very rigorous process, which is why I am at this Dispatch Box so much, now almost every day of the week, including Friday. As regards vetting in the Home Office, it follows the Cabinet Office vetting process, which is standard across Whitehall. All Home Office staff are bound to adhere to the Civil Service Code, and the Home Office is determined to uphold the highest standards for our staff.

We have all seen the tragic consequences for people, and particularly the terrible sight of unaccompanied children who take dangerous journeys, most likely in the hands of traffickers. While I fully commend its intention, the Bill is likely to place in danger an increased number of those people it seeks to protect. I have not mentioned the P word, because I do not want to dismay the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, but I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the point I am making. Rather than refugees seeking protection in the first safe country they reach, the Bill creates a perverse incentive for them to make perilous journeys to the UK in the hope of subsequently bringing their family here. We must ensure that we do not put more children in harm’s way, and we are doing this already through resettlement of children and their families direct from the region. We know that policy changes can and do have an impact—

Asylum Seekers: Students

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cannot give the noble Lord that information. As I have said to the House previously, the Home Office is proactively looking at anyone of the Windrush generation who might have been inadvertently caught up in the issue we have been talking about over the last few weeks. I am sure that those figures will ultimately come to light, but I do not have them here today.

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

My Lords, the Minister’s contribution today is obviously different from some of the cases we all know about of who might have been caught up in this restriction. What is the Government’s timescale to sort out this issue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said earlier, officials are proactively looking at these cases that might inadvertently have been caught out where the imposition of study bans have happened as a result of immigration bail. The answer is that it is immediate and I hope that this issue will be sorted out very quickly. In addition, new guidance has also been issued.

Renewal of G4S Contracts

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question given by her honourable friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle in the other place yesterday.

We were all shocked at the appalling abuse at Brook House uncovered by the “Panorama” programme. As the noble Baroness said, regardless of status, all immigration detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. I agree with that entirely. However, I do not think that a further extension of two years can in any way be presented as a short-term continuation of the G4S contract to run the Gatwick immigration centres. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any other options to this extension were considered—and, if not, why not? If they were, what were they, and why was it still felt that this was the best option? Further, can she tell us what measures the Home Office has put in place to ensure that there will be no repeat of the appalling abuse of detainees during this two-year extension? It is clear that whatever measures were in place before failed. The abuse was brought to light only by the “Panorama” programme and those involved should be congratulated on the work they did to expose the abuse at Brook House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cannot disagree—in fact, I do not think that anyone would disagree—with the noble Lord that watching the “Panorama” programme was very uncomfortable. It was shocking, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. He asked why the contract was extended for two years and whether other options were considered. The two-year extension to May 2020 was to allow for the reprocurement of services. It is not an unusual amount of time when such a reprocurement is being undertaken.

The procurement and the longer-term contract will be for the provision of the operation, management and maintenance of Brook House and Tinsley House and the pre-departure family accommodation at Tinsley House, as I pointed out. It is to allow the Home Office to consider any relevant conclusions from the independent reviews by Stephen Shaw and Kate Lampard. The Home Office has received the Stephen Shaw report, and both are due to be published in the summer. All bidders in the current competition were told of this decision on 4 May.

The noble Lord rightly asked what the Government are doing in the light of the shocking findings by “Panorama”. Since the programme aired, the Home Office has worked closely with G4S to ensure that it responds vigorously and at pace to the issues highlighted by “Panorama”. The former Home Secretary, and Ministers Brandon Lewis and Caroline Nokes, have met G4S senior managers regularly to review progress, and that oversight will be maintained. We have set out very clear expectations for G4S in responding to the issues at Brook House highlighted by “Panorama”, and we are currently satisfied that G4S has responded well. It has appointed a new manager and dismissed nine members of staff; enhanced staffing levels with recruitment and training plans in place; introduced body-worn cameras for staff to provide more transparency and assurance around procedures there; refreshed and promoted its whistleblowing procedures, with additional training provided at the centre by the Jill Dando Institute; put in place an improved drugs strategy; and, as I mentioned, commissioned the independent review by Kate Lampard, which will report this summer. I think I have now answered all the noble Lord’s questions.

Windrush

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat an Answer by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to an Urgent Question in another place.

“I am honoured to have been asked this morning to become Home Secretary. I start by making a pledge to those of the Windrush generation who have been in this country for decades and yet have struggled to navigate through the immigration system. This never should have been the case and I will do whatever it takes to put it right. Learning about the difficulties that the Windrush migrants have faced over the years has affected me greatly, particularly because I myself am a second-generation migrant.

Like the Caribbean Windrush generation, my parents came to this country from the Commonwealth in the 1960s. They, too, came to help rebuild this country and to offer all they had. So when I heard that people who were long-standing pillars of their community were being impacted simply for not having the right documents to prove their legal status in the UK, I thought, ‘That could be my mum, brother, uncle or even me’. That is why I am so personally committed to and invested in resolving the difficulties faced by the people of the Windrush generation, who have built their lives here and contributed so much.

I know that my predecessor, my right honourable friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, Amber Rudd, felt very strongly about this too. Please allow me to pay tribute to her hard work and integrity and to all that she has done and will continue to do in public service. I wish her all the very best. I will build on the decisive action that she has already taken.

A dedicated task force was set up to handle these cases. More than 500 appointments have been scheduled and more than 100 people have already had their cases processed and now have the necessary documents. We will continue to resolve these cases as a matter of urgency.

We have made clear that a Commonwealth citizen who has remained in the UK since 1973 will be eligible to get the legal status they deserve: British citizenship. That will be free of charge, and I will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation. We have also been clear that a new compensation scheme will be put in place for those whose lives have been disrupted. We intend to consult on the scope of the scheme and will appoint an independent person to oversee it. I hope that I can count on the full support of all honourable Members to make this happen as soon as possible.

I end by making one thing crystal clear: we will do right by the Windrush generation”.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Question from my right honourable friend, which the Home Secretary gave yesterday in the other place. I join her in offering my congratulations to her right honourable friend on his appointment.

What action will the new Home Secretary undertake to deliver a fair, just and humane immigration policy and get the country out of this shameful disaster? Is the noble Baroness aware of the call from the director-general of the CBI for our immigration policy to put people before numbers and work to benefit our economy and society? I hope she can commit to that this afternoon. Finally, when will there be more information about the compensation scheme, as this also must be fair and just to compensate properly for the terrible wrongs that have been caused?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. First, he asked what the Home Office will be doing to right the wrongs. The new Home Secretary has made some things very clear. He has made it quite clear that he does not like the term “hostile environment”, which he feels does not reflect the values of this country. The term was not invented recently; it was coined some time ago—under a Labour Home Secretary, I must say, but that is by the by, because Home Secretaries have used the term ever since. He has made it quite clear that, in line with the values that he and most of us share, there should be a compliant rather than a hostile environment.

The noble Lord also asked about putting people before numbers. My right honourable friend also made it quite clear, as did the previous Home Secretary only last week, that we want a humane environment. Some of the mechanisms set up for the Windrush generation will make it as easy as possible for people to get the documentation they need. Where necessary, officials will liaise with other government departments to ease the burden on those people who are here as of right. The noble Lord talked about the compensation scheme—in fact, he asked me about it at the end of last week. The Home Secretary has reiterated his commitment to a compensation scheme. He will be consulting on the scheme and, as I said, an independent person will be in place to oversee it. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions.

Licensing Act 2003 (Royal Wedding Licensing Hours) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Saturday 19 May promises to be a wonderful occasion and an opportunity for the whole country to celebrate. We all wish the happy couple a long and wonderful life together. I welcome the announcement that during the celebration period, the licensing hours will be extended. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Beer Group and a member of CAMRA. I support responsible drinking and understand the value of a good local pub.

I very much support the order before us, but I did notice that on the impact assessment, reference was made to the 2014 World Cup. I remember the debate in the Moses Room on this; the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, responded. At that time, I thought that the impact assessment was very mean-spirited, because it recommended that the opening hours be extended only for the first round, as there was little prospect of England getting beyond the first stage of the competition. I hope that the Government will be a little more optimistic this time and keep it under review for the contest taking place in June and July this year. I am very happy to agree to the order in front of us today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for starting us off on such a positive note, and for his support for the order. I join him in wishing the royal couple many years of happiness together.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, questioned why we could not extend the opening hours. The hours are put in place not only to provide for people enjoying themselves but to be proportionate in breaking up the length of time people can spend drinking. I recall that when my daughter got married, I was quite strict about people drinking before the wedding ceremony, just because of the usual things that might break out after heavy drinking. However, we think this is a proportionate response to the royal wedding.

That was a very amusing anecdote about the 2014 World Cup, and I note the noble Lord’s interest.

Muslims: Population Growth and Sharia Law

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think your Lordships’ House would agree that points about good Muslims and bad Muslims are not for this House. I was just wondering whether I, in that context, was a good Catholic or a bad Catholic, but I do not think that sort of thing has any place in your Lordships’ House or in society. We do not prescribe English being taught in madrassas, but we absolutely acknowledge that English language skills are fundamental to taking advantage of all the opportunities of living in modern Britain—getting a job, mixing with people and playing a full part in community life. The Government have no plans to hold a national debate on Islam.

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

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this great country of ours has always accepted immigrants of different faiths, traditions and cultures, and that tolerance, respecting of difference and accepting the rule of law as determined by Parliament must always be the way we go forward, along with standing up to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and any other form of hate that seeks to divide us?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. He and I are of Irish descent and first-generation Irish respectively. In fact, when we look around your Lordships’ House and this country, there would not be many of us if we did not have immigration.

Home Office Removal Targets

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is concerning that the Home Secretary had no idea that immigration targets were being used in the Home Office’s “hostile environment” and then discovered that they were being used after all. It is not acceptable to suggest that this was just done locally. Who is setting the targets and how have they been set? Who is collating the information and where has it been reported to? How has it been used to direct policy, and why did the Home Secretary and other Ministers not know about this policy? This is another shocking example of the Home Secretary and her Ministers having created a culture and then lost control. The consequences are serious for innocent people who are lawfully here and who have been caught up in this scandal. For that reason, the Home Secretary should accept responsibility and resign.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Ministers have set out their ambition for increasing returns, but have not set the Home Office specific numerical targets. The idea of government setting removal targets goes back a number of decades. For example, in 2003 Tony Blair set a target of halving the number of asylum seekers within a year, while in 2007 Jacqui Smith made a commitment to remove 4,000 FNOs within a year. Senior managers in the Home Office have set targets in the past to drive performance locally, including last year, but have now moved away from doing so for this reporting year.

Immigration: Asylum Claims

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the quality of the system was vastly improved after the 2014 report, which I talked about in my first Answer. In addition, the training of people dealing with LGBT asylum claims in detention or seeking their removal has been done in conjunction with both Stonewall and UKLGIG to absolutely ensure humane treatment of LGBT people in asylum.

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

Can I ask the noble Baroness about the Home Office guidance issued in 2017? I have seen reports suggesting that gay asylum seekers could be returned to Afghanistan if they pretended they were straight. Surely this cannot be the case. We must work to a much higher standard, and the question of personal safety should be paramount in decisions given by the authorities.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What the noble Lord says seems to be a contradiction in terms, because an LGBT person would presumably be seeking asylum because they feared persecution on return to a country that persecuted LGBT people. I would largely dispute the point, but I will double check because the noble Lord asked the question.

Manchester Arena Attack Review

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement that was made by my right honourable friend in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“The horrific events that took place at the Manchester Arena on 22 May last year were an attack on the people of Manchester. All terrorist attacks are cowardly but this was an appalling attack which deliberately targeted innocent people, many of them young. Twenty-two people were killed and many more injured. As a north-west MP, I feel the pain personally.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester commissioned this independent review following the attack, focusing on the response to the attack and the nine days that followed it. The report rightly highlights the acts of bravery and compassion on the night of 22 May and the following days. As Lord Kerslake noted yesterday, the response was overwhelmingly positive. He said the investments in planning and exercise were demonstrated to the full. We are indebted to the emergency services. He said we should reflect. We keep our preparedness for terrorist attacks under constant review to ensure that our plans reflect best practice and the current threat. Lessons learned from exercising and attacks are also crucial. It is right that all those involved acknowledge where the report has identified the need for improvement. The review is extensive and makes many recommendations. We, and all other agencies concerned, will consider them carefully.

At the centre of the review Lord Kerslake put the experiences of bereaved families, the injured and others directly affected, as indeed they should be. We will ensure that across government the recommendations concerning victims are fully considered. We continue to stand with the people of Manchester as they recover and rebuild following the horrendous attack last year, and our thoughts remain with those who were injured and with the families and friends of those who lost their lives”.

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

First, we remember all those people who lost their lives in the attack and also those who were injured. I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place earlier today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for his comprehensive report. I too pay tribute to the emergency service workers who acted with courage and skill on that terrible night.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government will be orchestrating a review into national counterterror protocols following the publication of this report? What are the Government going to do about the fact that the national aid mutual telephony system operated by Vodafone failed to cope with the high number of calls on the night in question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the national counterterrorist reaction and response, I think the noble Lord will agree that generally the overall response was excellent. There was an issue with the telephony system. Part of that issue was that there was no backup system. That has been thoroughly reviewed and a backup has been put in place. It was not something we would have wished to have happened on such a terrible night. I hope that that sort of issue will never arise again because of the measures we have put in place.

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) (Custodial Premises) Subordinate Provisions Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. I heard from what she said that this anomaly, whereby privately run prisons and custodial premises were not being inspected by national inspectors, was stumbled across when responsibility for Crown inspectors was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office. Will she confirm that that is the case, and is it not a little worrying? How long might it have continued if that transfer had not taken place? Clearly, it is very important to have consistency across all privately run prisons and other places of detention, rather than to have the potential for different standards being applied by local fire and rescue services. On that basis, we support the order.

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

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am very happy to support the order before the Grand Committee. It is certainly very sensible to have the experts in fire safety and security to be looking after the whole of the estate. I am very happy to support it.

I have one query; it is a little disappointing—I refer to page 5 of the impact assessment at paragraph 1.9. I am surprised that we still have this ridiculous “one in, three out” rule. It does not apply here because the Government have clearly tested it against that ridiculous rule. It is an example of the worst kind of ideological, political dogma. You would have thought, in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Grenfell, we would not be using it, but clearly the Government still are. I hope that any regulation is in force at any time because it is necessary and proper. I cannot believe we still have this arbitrary rule. It is a matter of much regret, which I will probably take up elsewhere. Other than that, I am very happy to support the order, but I was surprised to see this when I read through the papers this morning.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I acknowledge the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but first the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that we “stumbled across” this issue. Fire and rescue services were inspecting private prisons during the said period. Responsibility for Crown inspectors transferred from MHCLG in January 2016, but, going back, when the regulatory reform order was implemented in October 2006 the then Government issued statutory guidance to all those bodies that had a duty to enforce its provisions in the range of premises to which it applies. The guidance, to which all enforcing authorities are required to have regard, specifically addressed the issue of enforcement in the custodial estate. As it made clear:

“For the avoidance of doubt all civilian prisons, young offender institutions, immigration detention, holding or removal centres, court custody suites, customs and excise detention areas are the responsibility of the Fire Inspectors of the Crown Premises Inspections Group regardless of whether they are operated by the relevant Government department or contracted out”.


But as we know, what the law actually says does not always align with the policy intent, no matter how sound the principles are on which it is based. The principles are sound, as they were in 2007 when the guidance was issued, and they remain so. I hope that the statutory instrument before the Committee clarifies the situation and I beg to move.

Police Powers of Designated Civilian Staff and Volunteers (Excluded Powers and Duties of Constables) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am happy to support the regulations before the Grand Committee. It is obviously sensible that civilians are designated as having certain additional police powers as and when an appropriate police officer believes they are needed. Equally, of course, it is important that certain things are prohibited, and certainly an intimate search should not be in the hands of anyone but a warranted police officer. That is why I fully support this order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about how many other powers should be included, he is right that the Government should keep these excluded powers under review. They will give careful consideration to any request to add powers but it should be noted that the regulation-making power within Section 38(6)(c) of the 2002 Act can only be used to add powers to the list—that is, to remove further powers from designated staff and volunteers. The noble Lord probably knows that primary legislation would be required to remove any powers from the list and enable them to be designated to staff or volunteers.

Police: Emergency Calls

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I first join the noble Lord in remembering today the sacrifice that Keith Palmer made to protect people in the Palace of Westminster. There will be a memorial in, I think, about 20 minutes’ time in Westminster Hall to remember the attack a year ago. The MPCC and the APCC called for £440 million of extra funding in 2018-19, with additional counterterrorism funding and increases in council tax precepts on top. They wanted this funding for an extra 5,000 front-line officers for proactive policing by 2020. The funding increase for next year is made up of main government grant, protected at flat cash; up to £270 million from increase in council tax precept income; a £15 million increase in counterterrorism police funding; and a £130 million increase in national priorities, mostly special grant, for exceptional costs and technology. On the point about domestic violence, I totally agree with the noble Lord. We have provided £11 million through the police transformation fund to support new police interventions to tackle domestic abuse, with a focus on early intervention and prevention.

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

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in paying tribute to PC Keith Palmer. The crisis in police response times has been made in Downing Street and the Home Office and is putting people’s safety at risk. Does the Minister accept that the Government have, in real terms, cut the funding to police? When she responds, I am sure that she will have in mind the comments of the UK Statistics Authority chair, Sir David Norgrove, who criticised the Government and the Home Office for incorrectly leading the public to assume that the Government were increasing police funding.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, every time I have stood at this Dispatch Box I have tried to explain what the increase will look like. I hope that I have made it quite clear. I have just explained to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the breakdown of the funding. Almost all PCCs in England intend to increase the precept by £12, or very close to that. We expect the funding increase for local force budgets to be very close to the £270 million figure that I have just outlined. Most PCCs have set out plans to use this additional funding to protect or improve front-line policing. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, if all forces delivered the level of productivity benefits of mobile working of the best forces, the average officer could spend an hour a day extra on the front line. This has the potential to free up the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers across England and Wales.

Police: Undercover Officers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Gender Equality: Pay

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Trafficked Children: Asylum

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Online Hate Speech

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 15th March 2018 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I concur with the noble Lord.

Air Guns

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Yarl’s Wood: Hunger Strike

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Nurseries and Schools: Protection from Terrorism

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Muslim community is as anxious to prevent terrorist attacks as any other community. The Question relates to schools. Parents in the Muslim community do not want their children radicalised any more than we do.

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

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what specific work the Government have done with head teachers and governors over the past year? As she said, the situation has been unprecedented.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It has been—the noble Lord is right to point that out. DfE is working with the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and has had expert advice from the counterterrorism policing unit. As I said earlier, it is reviewing its guidance on preparedness, security measures and vulnerability to attack.

Refugees: Teaching of English

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with the noble Lord about English language skills being the key to employment, integration and contributing to wider society in general. As I said, we have made more than £10 million available over five years, and local authorities are required to arrange a minimum of eight hours’ formal tuition a week within a month of arrival and for a period of 12 months, or until the individual reaches ESOL entry level 3.

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

My Lords, there has been a huge cut in the funding of ESOL, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. Without being able to speak English, refugees, having fled conflict, have to cope with loneliness and isolation as well. Can the Minister explain to the House the Government’s comprehensive strategy for ESOL in England and how they will co-ordinate it with the devolved institutions?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

For refugees, which is what the Question is about, our ESOL strategy is that local authorities have to arrange a minimum of eight hours’ formal language tuition a week within a month of arrival and for a period of 12 months, or until that person reaches ESOL entry level 3. ESOL is a route to employment, and we want people who arrive here as refugees to be able to access the labour market as quickly as possible, because many of them will be quite highly skilled.

Crime: Scooter and Moped Gangs

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in answer to the question of why people are taking off their helmets, I assume that it is in order not to be pursued. That is why I made the point that police are absolutely at liberty, in pursuit of fighting crime, to chase people who are not wearing a helmet. On full compensation, if the noble Lord is amenable, I shall write to him on that point.

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

My Lords, I have spoken to police officers in London who have made it clear to me that they are very reluctant to chase suspects on scooters without helmets on, for fear of the suspect falling off and suffering injury or even death. What new measure are the Government going to bring into place to deal with this appalling crime? Also, can she assure the House that all intelligence, surveillance and investigative measures at the disposal of the authorities are being brought to bear to deal with this crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in terms of the police saying that they will not chase people who are not wearing helmets, in every pursuit case, the police weigh up the various risks of chasing people. There may be an incident where the police are unwilling to chase somebody who is not wearing a helmet because of the safety of other people. In terms of using all the options, following the round table held last summer, the Home Office is drawing up an action plan to consider the various ways in which we can tackle this issue, because it is not a single-agency issue. The Home Office is also drawing up a review which is due to report shortly.

Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Maritime Enforcement Powers: Code of Practice) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as we have heard from the Minister, the code before the House this evening deals with the practice to be followed by law enforcement officers when arresting a person under the powers conferred by Section 90 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. The powers may be exercised with the authority of the Secretary of State for specific situations on UK ships, ships registered in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or overseas territories, foreign ships and ships without a nationality in UK waters. I have no issue with the code as far as it goes, but the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has made a number of important points on which I look forward to the Minister’s response.

However, I suggest that the Government should consider a wider group of issues and seek to extend these powers further to protect the UK economy and to protect seafarers from employment abuses, particularly around the national minimum wage. While there has been significant progress on land, the position of seafarers remains insecure. The payment of wages below the national minimum wage in the UK merchant shipping industry should not be tolerated, and nor should the scandal of nationality-based pay discrimination. There is also the emergence of modern slavery in work in the waters around the UK, which must not be tolerated. Every action should be taken to eradicate it.

The merchant shipping industry and the fishing industry are very important to the economy of the United Kingdom, and we all want to see these industries being profitable and maintaining the highest of standards. The fact is that some people and some companies in these industries are not playing by the rules, and the enforcement action taken so far by the Government is not good enough. So will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of the RMT union? Alternatively, will she arrange for us to meet another Minister if that is more appropriate? The RMT is the union for seafarers, and these are serious issues which need to be looked at.

I am aware that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published guidance on seafarers and the national minimum wage and that the national minimum wage has been referred to, for the first time, in guidance to the Border Force working to prevent modern slavery on the seas. I know that there is a Department for Transport-led working group including the RMT, Nautilus, the UK Chamber of Shipping and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy looking at enforceable regulations around the national minimum wage for seafarers working between UK ports and between UK ports and the continental shelf.

These are important issues that need to be looked at seriously, and I am pleased to have been able to raise them today. They are perhaps not the subject of these regulations, but I hope the Minister will agree to my request for a meeting so that we can work together to find a solution to these issues.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have made. On the first series of points from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I just underline again that these powers cover all offences under the law of England and Wales. Clearly, not abiding by the minimum wage is an offence; were that to be extreme, one could say it falls into the modern slavery category. I am very happy to meet with the noble Lord and the RMT, and look forward to doing that.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point about an incident where someone was poked in the eye out at sea. Law enforcement officers will need to ensure that their use of these new enforcement powers is both necessary and proportionate, just as they would on land. Although it might be possible for the powers to be exercised for a minor crime on board a ship, such as for a poking in the eye—I recall that in that previous debate the example given was of the theft of a Mars bar—we expect that the powers will be used sensibly and proportionately by officers, just as they use their powers under PACE. Given the need for proportionality, we would not expect that forces would obtain Section 8 PACE warrants to raid domestic premises at the crack of dawn to investigate an allegation of a poking in the eye, and it is for that reason that we would not expect these maritime powers to be exercised to stop, board, divert and detain a ship at sea to investigate such an allegation. Instead, we expect that they will be used to investigate allegations of more serious crime. I am sure the noble Lord would agree and that that is the point he is getting at.

The noble Lord also talked about exceeding the 24-hour detention period. He is right to raise that. However, we need to recognise the exceptional nature of the maritime environment, where conditions are different to those on land. The powers can be used anywhere in the world, subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, and to the agreement of other states where their vessels and waters are involved. If we put in place a strict time limit, this would undermine our ability to use the powers globally as intended. It is intended for the suspects to be brought to a police station as soon as reasonably practicable and that they will be warned if this could take more than 24 hours. While the detainee is on board the vessel, the law enforcement official would explain to the detainee the maximum length of time that is anticipated will elapse before the person is brought to shore, and they will be reminded that the caution given to them at arrest continues to apply while they are detained. As for the welfare of the individual concerned, the code ensures that the detainees are told how long they are likely to be held before arriving at the police station or other authorised place of detention and are provided with a summary of their rights.

I think that is it. I do not have the answer to the question about rank of officer, but I will get it for the noble Lord.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I was pleased to hear that this applies to all potential infringement of legislation, as we heard when we had a meeting outside the Chamber. The issue is that I do not know whether guidance will be issued for when a ship is boarded on matters such as the rates of national minimum wage paid there. Are those issues that the officers boarding the vessel will look at? Obviously, an HMRC national minimum wage officer would look at that, but they have not got these powers. Can the noble Baroness say now that the police or other officials boarding a ship would have it in the back of their mind that these are issues they should be looking at as well?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not disagree with the noble Lord. Perhaps I should write to him with greater detail, and obviously if necessary we can meet up.

Transfer of Responsibility for Relevant Children (Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am happy to support the regulation before the House and declare an interest as a local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I first pay tribute to Kent County Council, members and staff, who have for many years worked very hard to deal with the issue of asylum seekers, particularly vulnerable unaccompanied children. Kent’s proximity to France and mainland Europe, and its ports of Dover, Folkestone, Ramsgate and other ports and harbours has meant that it has had to carry a heavy load. We are very grateful for that, as we are to all the other local authorities that have taken unaccompanied children in recent times.

All of local government should play a full role in looking after children fleeing conflict and there is no excuse for any local authority not to do so. So I welcome the Government taking these powers. It is right that they should be extended UK-wide, as this is a national response to a human tragedy. I hope it will not be necessary to use these powers as I hope every local authority in the UK will be willing to step up and play its part.

That is not to say that I do not have some criticism of the Government’s handling of the child refugee crisis. Despite votes being won in this House, pledges given and legislation amended, the Government’s response can sometimes be seen as mean-spirited in respect of children, and that is a matter of much regret. More should and could be done to protect vulnerable children who are fleeing persecution. We could take more children if we were minded to do so.

That means not only children in northern France but those in Italy and Greece who are also vulnerable. My noble friend Lord McConnell could not be here. He had another engagement and could not wait, as business has gone on a bit longer than we thought it would today. I know that he had some positive discussions with officials from the noble Baroness’s department. He was going to raise the issue of discussions between Ministers in the UK Government and Ministers in the Scottish Government, and whether there had been correspondence between them. If so, could that correspondence be published?

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lord Dubs raised important points, and I look forward to the response to them. Having said that, I support the instrument and think it is a positive step forward.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this statutory instrument. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the numbers in the devolved authorities. According to our management information, at the end of July 2017 there were 124 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the care of Scottish local authorities, the majority of whom are in the care of one Scottish local authority—Glasgow—while Edinburgh has 22. According again to our internal management information, at the end of July 2017, there were 55 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the care of Welsh local authorities.

The noble Baroness asked whether the number of children being transferred would be affected by the power-sharing agreement. I do not think so. Power sharing is a huge matter, but in Northern Ireland it is power sharing that has been argued over, not this issue. On the same note, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked why some children went to Scotland even though the secondary legislation is not in place. There was never any reason why they could not go to devolved authorities. Some went directly from countries abroad and never came into England; they went directly to Scotland, and to Wales, I think. The noble Lord asked why we have not brought this instrument forward sooner, but it is for that very reason. It could always have happened, but the devolved Administrations were unsure of their position. In many ways, this clarifies the position and puts it beyond doubt.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about funding for local authorities, which is a very important point. It has been a key concern raised by local authorities and local government partners. To coincide with the launch of the NTS in July 2016, the Government significantly increased the funding they provide to local authorities for unaccompanied children below the age of 16. We increased it by 20% so that local authorities now receive over £41,000 a year. For those aged 16 and 17, who account for more than 60% of newly arrived unaccompanied children, we increased the funding by 28% so that local authorities receive £33,215 per annum. In addition, we increased the funding we provide to local authorities for former unaccompanied children who go on to attract leaving-care support by 33%. Local authorities now receive £200 per week.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about social workers and guardians. The Home Office and the Department for Education have been working closely with local government’s Association of Directors of Children’s Services to ensure that guidance is available to local authorities on immigration outcomes. All unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are referred to the Refugee Council’s children’s panel and are entitled to legal advice.

Further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about bringing forward secondary legislation, we are looking for parliamentary time to allow it. He also asked whether we would consult the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. As the noble Lord knows, we consulted the devolved Administrations in developing these regulations and will continue to do so. In operating the scheme, we will work very closely with regional strategic migration partnerships in the devolved Administrations with a view to identifying suitable placements. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord’s questions.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I accept that people want to assert their rights. Of course I do. I also think that we had a very detailed debate in Committee. Points were raised about the broad-brush approach; the Government have responded, and I am happy to support their amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these amendments bring us back to the immigration exemption in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, was debated at some length in Committee. As this is Report, I am not going to repeat all the arguments I made in the earlier debate, not least because noble Lords will have seen my follow-up letter of 23 November, but it is important to reiterate a few key points about the nature of this provision, not least to allay the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords.

Let me begin by restating the core objective underpinning this provision. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, specifically asked for further clarity on this point. The UK’s ability to maintain an effective system of immigration control and to enforce our immigration laws should not be threatened by the impact of the GDPR. It is therefore entirely appropriate to restrict, on a case-by-case basis, certain rights of a data subject in circumstances where giving effect to those rights would undermine that objective. That is the sole purpose and effect of this provision—nothing more, nothing less.

The GDPR recognises this by enabling member states to place restrictions on the rights of data subjects where it is necessary and proportionate to do so to safeguard,

“important objectives of general public interest”.

The maintenance of effective immigration control is one such objective. This is the basis for the provision in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2.

The noble Baroness referred to article 23 of the GDPR. It does not expressly allow restrictions for the purposes of immigration control. She asked whether the immigration restriction is legal. She pointed to Liberty’s claim that the exemption is unlawful. It is not the case.

Online Hate Speech

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 30th November 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, first, the Prime Minister was absolutely right to make it clear that President Trump was wrong to tweet videos from the extremist group Britain First. Such actions are no help in the fight against terrorism.

Secondly, does the Minister agree that the United Kingdom always has and always will fight terrorism wherever it comes from, with our police, security services and military keeping us safe 24 hours a day, and that people of faith—whatever that faith may be—and people of no faith coming together in communities, respecting each other, celebrating our differences and learning from each other, is equally important in fighting terrorism and the spreaders of hate? Will she and her colleagues in government look again at what they can do to remove these vile sites, such as that of Britain First, from the web?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. We will always fight terrorism, and we will fight it together in whatever form it takes. We should remember that our different communities and different faiths played a part in both the wars that we have fought together. As a society, we will not tolerate any divisions that seek to penetrate our communities. On the noble Lord’s point about going further to tackle activities on Twitter and other social media sites, Twitter now takes down 95% of illegal activity, but on the point about us working together as two nations, it is because of the US that we were able to talk to the CSPs about taking down such content from Twitter and other platforms, and we will continue to do that. We now have the online hate crime hub, Tell MAMA, which allows people to report Islamophobia, and the Community Security Trust as a repository for people to report anti-Semitism and related activity. We are absolutely determined to drive out all forms of hatred within our country, and this country should be rightly proud of the tolerance and respect that it has for other faiths and other communities.

Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Orders Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the points that they raised. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a series of very good points about this issue, including about the perhaps marginal benefit of disconnecting the phone. I guess that assumes that the phone is used by one person to make one call but in fact it is not. It is often used by hundreds of drug users to facilitate thousands of deals every single day. Therefore, giving no notice of the intention to close down the mobile phone stops the criminals from posting to the users the fact that the phone is going to be closed down. So that is one benefit of it.

Both noble Lords suggested that this is just one very small step. It is something that the NCA and the Government have been concerned about. It is one step. It is not the whole solution. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the general support that users need with rehabilitation and perhaps with mental health problems. The other issues around guns and gangs often go together with drugs. He is right that there is often a multiagency approach to just one of the problems that these young people face. As I said to, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, before the debate, often these young people are in care, so they are very vulnerable. These are the people who are being used for the county lines activity. It absolutely needs sorting but noble Lords are right that this is not the full answer to what is quite a complex problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the police cuts. As I have explained on many occasions, the police budget has been protected over the last few years. The NCA shows that police forces across the country are very engaged in tackling county lines. They are not linking any problems with budgetary issues to being able to tackle these problems.

I understand that new CPS guidance has been issued, as well as awareness guidance on health and social care problems. I do not think the police or the Government want to criminalise a young person at 16 for drug use. They want to rehabilitate that person, as the noble Lord says. Access to jobs and a life away from drugs, guns and gangs is much more preferable to a life dealing with drugs, albeit such a life can be quite lucrative.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked why the NCA cannot launch criminal proceedings against the phone line. The ownership of the phone line is concealed and often anonymous. The noble Lord makes the point about identification, because we have to provide identification for everything, but someone can simply go into a mobile phone shop and buy a mobile phone. I will take that point away with me. The noble Lord also made a point on verification, and I do not disagree. He also asked whether there was an unwillingness of mobile phone operators to engage with this. I think there was that element, because the Government would not have legislated if mobile phone operators had co-operated on this. I think that that answers the noble Lord’s questions.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for those replies. I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that some of the companies involved may not be as keen as we hoped they would be. It is a bizarre situation that someone can go off down the road and buy a mobile phone. This may not be the only solution, but if you bought a phone and the line was attached to you and you had to provide your passport and credit card, and even if in the end you were not a drug dealer but the phone was used for a drug deal, someone could go back and say: “Hang on—you bought this phone six months ago and now it has been used in these operations. What have you got to say about that?”. The fact that it is all anonymous makes things very difficult for everybody concerned.

I think it is the companies—either the shops or mobile phone operators—who are not keen to co-operate. We have seen in other Bills, such as the Data Protection Bill, other issues from companies that are not keen to co-operate with the Government and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps we should look further at that, because it seems ridiculous to me. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will know better than I that these are really serious matters. People’s lives can be totally destroyed. A company certainly has no right not to co-operate with the Government. The Government should insist on this. As I said, you cannot get your parcel from the Post Office without producing your council tax bill or your passport, but you can go off and buy a mobile phone and become a drug dealer. It is ridiculous.

I also mentioned the point about cannabis seeds. Cannabis seeds and all the equipment can be bought in this country quite legally. You cannot run a cannabis farm, but you can buy seeds on a number of high streets, which is absolutely ridiculous. I found that out only a few weeks ago when I was out with the police on the beat. They said, “That shop down the road, you can buy all the stuff, and there’s nothing illegal in doing that”. If that is the case—and I have no reason to doubt the officers—that should also be looked at, because it is a ridiculous situation.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I forgot to mention that point. If the noble Lord would let me know the name of the shop, we can take that on.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Act 2016 (Consequential Amendments) (Biometrics and Legal Aid) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the regulations before us are not in themselves controversial. As the Minister outlined, they make relatively minor changes in respect of provisions contained in the Immigration Act 2016, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and LASPO. I have read the regulations and the Explanatory Notes and am content that the Government have the required powers. As I said, these are relatively minor changes. No concerns have been raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours raised an interesting point. I look forward to the Minister responding to it. Paragraph 7 in the Explanatory Notes is particularly helpful as it sets out the policy background and why these regulations are needed. Therefore, I will detain the House no longer. I am content with the regulations.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that these statutory instruments make consequential amendments to legislation. Legislation is constantly kept under review. As regards widening the scope of the measure, I cannot predict the decisions of a future Government, who may, of course, not be a Conservative Government. However, I am sure that a future Government will consider that measure when keeping legislation under review. At the moment, we have no plans to extend the current practice. Section 141 does not limit the number of digits from which fingerprints may be taken. However, officials who decide to take fingerprints must ensure that their actions are proportionate to the reasons why they are taking them.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017 was laid in Parliament on 20 April. I am very grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its very valuable advice. The council’s recommendations have prompted the order before you today.

This order relates to three groups of substances. The first is the synthetic opiate known as U-47700; the second consists of 12 methylphenidate-related new psychoactive substances; and the third is etizolam and 15 additional designer benzodiazepines. The effect of this order is to insert these 29 drugs into Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This will make it an offence to possess, produce, import, export, supply, or offer to supply these drugs without a Home Office licence.

U-47700 is a synthetic opiate which was originally developed as a research chemical but has found no legitimate use. It is reportedly 7.5 times more potent than morphine. The order will insert U-47700 into Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act as a class A drug, due to its high addiction potential.

On methylphenidate-related new psychoactive substances, the injecting of ethylphenidate, an amphetamine-type stimulant, was considered a public health issue in Edinburgh in 2015. Following ACMD advice, ethylphenidate and six similar substances were placed under a temporary class drug order. This temporary class drug order was relaid in 2016 for a further year, and the ACMD has now advised that these substances, plus an additional five related substances, be controlled under the Act. The order will insert these methylphenidate-related NPS into Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Act as class B substances.

On etizolam and designer benzodiazepines—saying these things correctly is always a test for a Minister at the Dispatch Box—the abuse of benzodiazepines has been well known, and as such, many of these are controlled under the Act. The ACMD had become aware of increasing reports of the harms caused by designer benzodiazepines—those which are not licensed medicines in the UK but imported specifically for their psychoactive effects. Of particular concern was etizolam, which is related to a number of deaths in Scotland. The order will insert etizolam and the further 15 designer benzodiazepines into Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act as class C substances.

Etizolam has been identified by some countries, including Italy, as having some therapeutic benefits, so the Government have asked the ACMD to keep its scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 under close review. There are no legitimate or recognised uses of any of the other substances before your Lordships today beyond potential research. For these reasons, my honourable friend the Minister for Vulnerability, Safeguarding and Countering Extremism accepted the advisory council’s advice that these substances should be subject to the order before you today. It is intended that two further related statutory instruments will be made to come into force at the same time as the order to add these substances to the appropriate schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001.

This order, if made, will provide enforcement agencies with the requisite powers to restrict the supply and use of these harmful substances in this country. It will also provide a clear message to the public that the Government consider these substances to be a danger to society. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I am supportive of the order before us this afternoon. I will not be attempting to pronounce any of the names in it. I have carefully read the order and the Explanatory Memorandum and am content to agree it. The Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, particularly section 7, which sets out the policy background.

It is worth noting that the drugs are being permanently listed as controlled substances in each of the classifications today—namely, class A, class B and class C—on the advice of the independent experts who make up the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This is being done following a review they carried out, and they are the experts in these matters. It is also worth noting—again, this is in section 7—that in each of these classifications these drugs have led to the loss of life. I suspect that those affected are more likely to be younger people, and of course that is devastating for their families. Losing anyone at any age is terrible, but in circumstances where that could have been avoided it is all the more heartbreaking.

In conclusion, I am content to approve the order and, with the other measures that are in force with the police, the NHS and the community drug projects, I hope that it will go some way towards ensuring that the people responsible for bringing these substances on to the street are caught and punished, and that their operations are shut down. Then the people taking these substances can get the help they need to get off them and deal with the problems they have in their lives. I am very happy to support the order.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I have to declare an interest in that my son suffered from benzodiazepines for several years and has only recently, mercifully, recovered from them. Therefore, I have been very well aware of this word.

I am delighted to hear the Minister say that the department is much more aware of the harmful effects of these legally prescribed drugs. However, is she also aware that a proposal has been put forward to the department on providing the minimum help of a helpline for people who are afflicted? This has been put on the table and, if she is not aware of it, she might be able to write to me about it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am most grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their very constructive comments, and I am very glad to hear that the noble Earl’s son is now in recovery. On his point about a helpline, a number of tools are certainly available to people through websites. I am trying to think of the name of the website—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

FRANK.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is it. FRANK is an aid to guide people—particularly young people—away from drugs and the consequences of their use. Helplines are available. I do not know the answer regarding the one to which the noble Earl referred but I can get him some information.

On that note, I thank noble Lords for their comments.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness foxed me when she asked that question the first time and she is still foxing me. I shall write to her before Report because I really do not know the answer.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and I am pleased that the Minister understands the spirit and intention behind our amendment. The comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are points well made. They have vast legal experience and if I bring the issue back at all on Report, I shall take on board their comments and wise legal advice and draft my amendment accordingly. I certainly thank all noble Lords for their contribution today, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill was welcomed by all sides of the House at Second Reading. Unexplained wealth orders are a device to give law enforcement agencies powers to require a person suspected of involvement in or association with serious criminality to explain the origin or source of assets which appear disproportionate to their income.

Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to insert the words, “beyond reasonable doubt” after the word “satisfied”, when requiring a person to comply with an order. This raises an important point, but I am not convinced that introducing this higher test is needed here. It would make it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to get permission to seek the source of the wealth which has led them to suspect that the person’s lawfully obtained income would be insufficient for the purposes of obtaining their assets. I agree with the remarks made about this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who said that the higher evidential test would not be welcome in this regard. I also agree with the comments made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Phillips. I also agree with the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, on the investigatory role—the test and procedure would be difficult there as well.

Amendments 2 and 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, give a better definition in relation to a person’s connection to a property, and the Government should reflect carefully on this during the passage of the Bill and possibly bring an amendment forward on Report.

Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would provide an additional power to require a person to answer questions under oath. Again, that seems a reasonable additional power to take, which could be used at the discretion of the court. I very much take the point that the noble Lord made about the William Hill defence in terms of how one acquires assets and wealth. We need to look at that important point.

On Amendments 8 and 9, I thought that the £100,000 value in respect of a property was about right, that the £50,000 figure proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, was too low, and that the figure proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was far too high. However, having sought advice from law enforcement agencies, I understand the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I am content that the figure she proposes may well be right.

There is a whole series of government amendments in this group which I am content with, as they seek to prevent a person subject to one of these orders seeking to circumvent it through complicated financial means and transactions.

This has been a very useful debate, with some well-informed contributions that posed a number of questions for the noble Baroness. I am sure that she will reflect on those as we may want to come back to some of those points on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, made important points about property and the problems associated with it. I think that we shall debate an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in the next group which concerns property.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent debate. We have had some very good contributions from noble Lords from around the Committee on the significant new powers of the unexplained wealth order. I will do my best to respond to all the points that were made. I apologise in advance if I take some time to do so.

As noble Lords will know, the measures in this Bill are largely focused on serious and organised crime, but it also provides important new powers to tackle terrorist financing. Last week’s horrific attack reminds us all of the very real nature of this threat. I would like to take a moment to pause and think about the families of those who have been killed and those who still lie injured in hospital. I again pay tribute to the men and women of the police and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies who are so committed to keeping us safe—to PC Keith Palmer, but also to his many colleagues who work in Parliament and across the country. We must ensure that they have the powers they need to investigate and disrupt terrorists and terrorist groups. The powers in Part 2 of the Bill, which we will come to later, will do just that.

I return to the amendments in this group on unexplained wealth orders—or UWOs. The UK is a world leader in the fight against global corruption and the UWO is a substantial new power that will assist UK law enforcement agencies to do so. I welcome the continued cross-party support for these measures. I remind noble Lords that a UWO is a court order that requires a person to provide information which shows that they obtained identified property legitimately. If the person provides information in response to a UWO, the enforcement authority can then decide whether to investigate further, take recovery action under POCA or, if they are satisfied, take no further action. If the person does not comply with a UWO, either by not responding or not responding fully to the terms of the order, the property identified in the order is presumed to be recoverable under any subsequent civil recovery proceedings.

There are a number of government amendments in this group and I turn to them first. These are, by and large, technical changes to the provisions to help them function most effectively, but I will highlight a few for the benefit of noble Lords. As regards trusts, we have tabled government Amendments 3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 30 to 32, 36, 38 to 40, 52, 53, 174 and 175. Perhaps the biggest addition to the provisions made by the government amendments are the measures to ensure that a UWO can be served in situations where property of interest is held in trust or involves corporate structures. This, I believe, picks up some of the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Faulks. The amendments will also allow subsequent UWOs to be obtained on additional individuals such as trustees in complex cases where this is necessary. The amendments are not a silver bullet in cases where trusts and corporate entities are involved. However, they are a significant improvement and will close a potential gap.

UWO thresholds are addressed by government Amendments 8 and 33, which would reduce the threshold for a UWO to be obtained from £100,000 to £50,000. Noble Lords rightly questioned how we settled on the balance. It followed representations from authorities in Scotland—including from the SNP during Commons consideration of the Bill—and Northern Ireland. It reflects the fact that the higher threshold could disadvantage law enforcement agencies in certain parts of the country where financial returns may not be as high or may be spread more evenly across criminal groups, and where property, in particular, has a lower value.

The threshold, however, is still an important safeguard, together with the other qualifying criteria that must be met before a UWO can be made by the court. It remains our view that the orders should be used in the most complex cases, where obtaining evidence has proved difficult, and this will be reflected in the supporting guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled a related amendment to push the threshold up rather than down. She helped us to reflect on the balance that must be struck in circumscribing the new power. However, based on our consultation with law enforcement agencies, I suggest that her proposed threshold of £500,000 would be prohibitive. It would stop the agencies using this power in significant cases involving serious and organised crime, and noble Lords have been clear that they want to see the most effective use of UWOs. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied that our approach strikes the appropriate balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the issue of whistleblowing in her contribution at Second Reading and now proposes this new clause today with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As we have heard, it would establish an office of the whistleblower. The purpose would be to offer much-needed protection to whistleblowers who expose criminality, corruption, fraud and other illegal activity. The price that whistleblowers often pay for alerting the authorities to illegal and criminal activity is to lose their jobs and have their careers ruined and destroyed.

The noble Baroness is right to highlight that we need to do more to offer protection and compensation to people who come forward and alert the authorities to the illegal activity. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, supported action and I agree. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that setting up an office may not be the right way to go about that. What is definitely needed is further protection in statute and regulation. It may not need an office to be established. I will be interested to hear the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, to this amendment. I entirely accept that it is a probing amendment and I think that we should take the opportunity that this Bill affords us to do something to address the issue of whistleblowers and the precarious position that they can find themselves in, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has highlighted to the House today. I accept that whistleblowing goes across a variety of sectors, but we are dealing with the financial services sector and this would be a good place to start.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing us to debate this important issue. Whistleblowers play a valuable role in society by bringing wrongdoing to light that could otherwise go unchallenged. Individuals should be able to report malpractice in the workplace without fear of reprisal; and employers should be prepared to work with staff to resolve concerns, particularly by means of effective internal procedures.

The Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and subsequently, provides employment protection for workers in all sectors who have blown the whistle. It enables them to seek redress if they are dismissed or suffer detriment at the hands of the employer because they have made a “protected disclosure” about wrongdoing that they have witnessed at work. To qualify for the protections, a worker must generally make their disclosure either to their employer or the relevant “prescribed person”. “Prescribed persons”’ are typically regulatory bodies for the sector in which the whistleblower works or the type of wrongdoing involved.

I assure noble Lords that, over recent years, the Government have taken steps to support a cultural change in relation to whistleblowing in all sectors, including financial services. A number of statutory and non-statutory improvements have been made. This includes guidance for whistleblowers on how in practice to make disclosures while preserving their employment protections; and guidance for employers including a non-statutory code of practice which we will review this year. We have fulfilled the commitment to keep the prescribed persons list up to date with annual reviews, and we now have guidance in place for prescribed persons. The next update will require prescribed persons to report annually on the number of whistleblowing disclosures they have received and broadly the action that resulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I agree with the Minister that the office is not the right way forward, but is she saying that everything is fine?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am saying that the Government looked at this in 2014, certainly in terms of the financial incentives, and there are various mechanisms in the different sectors for whistleblowers to come forward. The ultimate sanction for employers is unlimited compensation, depending on the type of wrongs that that employer engages in.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sorry to come back on this, but I take it that the Government do not think that anything further needs to be done on this at the moment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government are never complacent in any area of law they introduce; I would never say that everything is perfect.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has merit and widens the Bill so that assets which can be used as currency can be included for the purposes of the forfeiture of cash. In some parts of the world, mobile phone credits are traded as cash and it would not be impossible to see situations where large quantities of these credits could be traded, hold the proceeds of crime and be used as currency. There will be other items that will be used in similar circumstances in the future.

However, I am not persuaded by Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand the arguments about what is included in this broad definition but believe that what is shown in the Bill as “listed assets” is better. However, I would want the regulations which may amend subsection (1) to use the affirmative procedure because it is important that we have a discussion about it at that time.

Amendments 85, 89, and 106 add the words “reasonable grounds for suspecting”. Those are proportionate clarifications which the Minister should adopt. I am not convinced that Amendment 87 is necessary. I see the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is seeking to address but hope that the Government will confirm that the words “safely stored” will cover this point and that valuable goods will be stored appropriately.

I am not persuaded of the merits of Amendment 102, although I do support Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Baroness. If the court is satisfied that the person has suffered a loss then they should be compensated for that loss and it is important that regulations made under this section are not used to restrict the payment of compensation. Amendment 105 is also a sensible addition, unless the Minister says very clearly today that a person’s reasonable living expenses include them providing for their dependants. Amendment 106, bringing in the term “reasonable grounds”, in respect of forfeiture is also a welcome provision.

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

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for his kind words. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has—as always—scrutinised the provisions in some detail and I am grateful to her for the points she raised. Her Amendments 81 and 84 seek to broaden the scope of the seizure and forfeiture powers at Clauses 13 and 14 so that they can essentially be used to seize any items deemed to be the proceeds of crime. However, these will create a number of issues. The test that the property “may be used as currency” is legally ambiguous and untested, and it could complicate the use of these powers. The effect of Amendment 81 would also be to include a wide range of property in the cash forfeiture procedure which is not easily severable, as would be required for these provisions.

The noble Baroness referred to bitcoin at the beginning of her speech. There are difficulties in defining what we would seize. While we would not include this in the Bill, we are continuing to work with law enforcement agencies to determine how we should approach this issue more generally, and specifically to determine whether there is a gap in law enforcement capability that requires legislative change.

In respect of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 84, I am sure she would agree that we must take a proportionate approach to ensure that there is clarity regarding what can and cannot be seized. The items listed in the Bill are there based on clear justification that they may be used to move or hide the proceeds of crime, and we drew on the advice of law enforcement practitioners in developing this list. Her amendments would move away from the principle of clarity, eroding the careful circumscription that the Bill provides for these provisions. We can add to the list when the need arises, subject to parliamentary approval. As we have demonstrated through our amendments during the Bill’s passage, we will do so where a clear case arises. This gives us and the police the flexibility and balance we need while ensuring that this is not a sweeping seizure power. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to emphasise how seriously the Government take these issues, particularly the need for stringent safeguards on the use of such powers. I trust that she will feel inclined not to press these amendments.

I turn to the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. Amendment 85 seeks to insert the principle of “reasonable grounds for suspicion” into the definition of a listed asset. However, this appears to insert this test in the wrong place in the Bill. We consider that the inclusion of the “reasonable grounds to suspect” test in the sections relating to the operation of the seizure powers is more appropriate, and this approach mirrors the existing provisions for the recovery of cash.

Amendment 86 seeks to require the Secretary of State to take the actions relating to the issuing of the code of practice for searches for listed items before it is issued. The provision in the Bill is consistent with existing wording in the Proceeds of Crime Act relating to codes of conduct. I assure the noble Baroness that all the relevant actions will be taken before a code is issued.

Amendment 87 seeks to require that items seized under these provisions should be stored in appropriate conditions. The agency seizing such property is liable for its storage, and would be liable for damage to such property if due care were not taken. Therefore, we believe that the agency responsible would take such action in any case.

Amendment 102 seeks to remove the provision allowing the release of the listed item if the victim was deprived of it through unlawful conduct. The provision is one of three principles that the court must consider when the victim applies to the court for the item to be returned. The removal of this provision would remove the requirement on the victim to show that they had lost the property through unlawful means. This is an important test that the court must satisfy itself on, and which already applies to the well-established system for the forfeiture of cash, and we believe that it should be retained.

Amendment 104 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State restricting the payment of compensation through regulation. The intention behind the power in the Bill is to ensure that the appropriate agency can be held responsible for any compensation that may be paid. It allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of those who are liable for paying compensation where appropriate. The provision already exists for cash forfeiture, and I see no reason not to replicate it here. It should be noted that the circumstances in which compensation would be payable are set out elsewhere in new Section 303W, and that the Secretary of State’s power does not extend to amending these provisions.

The noble Baroness asked why exceptional circumstances are required. This is modelled on the cash provisions. The seizure power applies to a limited number of assets. It is not anticipated that, in normal circumstances, seizure would result in loss being sustained. The items are not likely to change in value during the timeframe for seizure.

I turn to provisions relating to Clause 15. Amendment 105 seeks to extend the exclusions to an account-freezing order to include the living expenses of a person’s dependants. The provision for exclusions relates to the actions on the account and the owner’s ability to use the contents of the account to meet reasonable living expenses. I fully appreciate that there may be dependants of the account owner who would be adversely affected if no provision were made for the account to be used to meet their living expenses. That is why we have included this provision. The living expenses will be determined by a court and, if there are dependants, the court will take them into consideration.

Amendment 106 would include a provision that, where forfeiture is sought on the grounds that it will be used for unlawful conduct, the officer must have reasonable grounds for suspicion that this is the case. The existing provisions already require the officer to be satisfied that the property may be recoverable or may be used for unlawful conduct, and we do not want to lower that threshold.

I thank noble Lords for their patience. I hope that I have addressed the issues that the noble Baroness raised and that she will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

When I spoke about listed assets, on page 44 of the Bill, I said I preferred what was in the Bill to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I mentioned regulations being made by the affirmative procedure. Of course, it does not say that here, so I am assuming that they are not—that they will be made by the negative procedure or in some other way. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on this.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am looking for a yes or a no, but I do not think that I will get it, so I will write to the noble Lord.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I too must declare an interest as a former councillor and resident of Greater Manchester. I pay tribute to Tony Lloyd who has held the fort very well over the last couple of years in his role as interim mayor, and in all the roles he has held previously in government and local government. We have here three people who will be voting in the mayoral elections in May, so that is very good. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned turnout. I recall an experience I had in Greater Manchester of probably the worst turnout in history: the Benchill by-election back in November or December 2001, where turnout was 8%. That was a depressing low. Looking forward to the mayoral elections, I was quite sceptical about the Mayor of London, but that is not a position for which any political party is scraping round for candidates. It is very sought-after and has gained a profile over the years, and I fully expect that will happen in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. As it does, visibility will grow and accountability will become a lot more obvious.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith—I was going to call him my noble friend, but he is really—talked about blue light services being brought back down to GM. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about ambulance trusts. It is within the gift of whichever combined authority to request collaboration in that regard, or that those matters be part of the devolved model. There are no limits to what the model may look at. That brings in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: that the different devolution deals are a bit of a patchwork. This is necessarily a patchwork because every area is different. For example, rural areas look very different from urban areas; they have different needs and different proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is smiling at me slightly but I said that on the then devolution Bill, and I firmly believe it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that the Liberal Democrats grilled me on accountability and scrutiny during the passage of that Bill. We have very rigorous structures in place, certainly in Greater Manchester and, I hope, elsewhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the compulsion to combine police and fire authority areas, particularly where they are not contiguous. There is absolutely no compulsion to do that. If they are not contiguous, such a move would require structural change anyway.

I think I have answered all the questions, but if not I will certainly come back to noble Lords.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I accept entirely that different areas have different needs and may want to tackle this issue in different ways. The point I was making is that the Government have not made it clear where we are going. That is not to say that different areas cannot tackle this issue in different ways; of course they can; they have different needs. However, the Government have never set out clearly in a document where they are going with this, which is why the situation is confusing. The West Midlands is a similar conurbation to others, with similar problems and similar areas, but the deal that was arrived at and the powers that were transferred are vastly different from those in other similar areas. Why? That information is missing. There is no difficulty with having different arrangements, but we need to know how the Government have arrived at the present position.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, mentioned, we left it up to local areas to say what their version of public service reform looked like—what did public service efficiency look like going forward and what was their plan for growth? Therefore, that might look slightly different in different areas, which is why I explained it in the way I did. However, there will be similarities: transport is a huge issue in Greater Manchester and the solution to that will be huge in terms of growth, as it will be for other areas.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I very much support all the amendments in this group. We have made tremendous progress in recent years in seeking to redress the effects of homophobic legislation. Terrible injustices were suffered, and previous changes to the law and the amendments are intended to go some way to correct that and make amends. They have my full support and that of my party.

Of course, we need to go further in Northern Ireland, but this is an important step. I want to see the day when LGBT people living in Northern Ireland have exactly the same rights, protections and freedoms as LGBT people living in England, Scotland and Wales. We are a United Kingdom, albeit with devolved institutions, but LGBT people should have the right to get married in Northern Ireland; that must be urgently addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the ministerial team led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Stormont. It is wrong to keep using the petition of concern procedure to block progress in this matter. The UK Government must play their role in championing the rights of LGBT people in Northern Ireland by raising this issue at ministerial and official level. It is not enough for the Government to say that it is a matter for the devolved institution.

During Committee on the Bill on 9 November, I made clear my support for a range of amendments proposed by several Lords. I was clear that welcome progress was being made, but that the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman were in my view the best ones before your Lordships’ House. They were not accepted by the Government, but discussions have taken place outside the Chamber, and the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, are very welcome. I thank the noble Baroness very much for listening and working with my noble friend on them.

I pay warm tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman. We have been friends for many years. It is his tireless campaigning with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that has got us to this point today, and we should be very grateful to them all.

Although it is not on the subject of the amendments, I will make one final point on equality in Northern Ireland in respect of women’s equality. The Northern Ireland Assembly, Ministers, led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the political parties must get together to deliver equality for women living in Northern Ireland, so that they enjoy the same rights as women living in England, Scotland and Wales. Again, the UK Government have to play their role by raising that at ministerial level. Although that is a matter for another day, it is an important issue to which we must return. In conclusion, I confirm my full support for the amendments.

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

My Lords, I am so pleased to be able warmly to support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friend, Lord Lexden. I also acknowledge the spirit of very positive co-operation that has led to the amendments. I recognise that they will continue to strengthen the efforts made by this Government to tackle the historical wrongs suffered by gay and bisexual men in England and Wales—and now Northern Ireland—who were criminalised over a long period for something that something that society today regards as normal sexual activity.

I shall deal first with Amendments 181D, 181E and 181F, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. As he explained, they will enable the Secretary of State to extend, by regulations, the list of offences eligible for a disregard under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The regulation-making power enables the necessary modifications to be made to Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the 2012 Act, and provides for corresponding provision for pardons to that contained in Clauses 148 and 149 of the Bill.

In Committee the noble Lord made the case for other offences being included in the disregard process, in particular the offence of solicitation by men which is in Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. As I indicated at that time, the Government are broadly sympathetic to this, but we need more time to work through the implications of adding offences to the disregard scheme, and in particular the conditions that need to be satisfied before a conviction could be disregarded. In recognition of the fact that we should not rush that consideration, Amendment 181D enables the Home Secretary to add other abolished offences to the disregard scheme by regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. It is important that, in taking this forward, we are able to distinguish between activities that are now no longer illegal and those that are still illegal. This amendment also gives us scope to consider what other offences may be appropriate for inclusion, so it is to be welcomed as a signal of our continued commitment to address these historical wrongs.

As my noble friend Lord Lexden explained, the amendments in his name introduce a comparable disregard scheme in Northern Ireland to match that already in operation in England and Wales. They also introduce the same approach to statutory pardons as that contained in Clauses 148 to 150 of the Bill.

As I indicated in Committee, as these provisions relate to transferred matters in Northern Ireland, it is right that this House should respect the usual convention that the UK Parliament legislates in respect of such matters only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am pleased to say that the Assembly adopted the necessary legislative consent Motion on 28 November.

My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out the important difference in the Northern Ireland disregard scheme; I thank him for explaining it to the House so that I shall not have to go through it again. I am pleased that we have been able to work fruitfully with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and with my noble friend, and I commend their amendments to the House.

My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out an apparent contrast in the approach taken in Clause 148 as between civilian and service offences. That clause confers posthumous pardons for convictions for buggery and certain other abolished offences tried in the civilian courts, which date back to the Henry VIII statute of 1533—whereas posthumous pardons for convictions for the equivalent offences under service law reach back only to 1866. My noble friend said that it was in fact the Navy Act 1661 which first criminalised buggery in the Armed Forces. While the intention behind Clause 148(4) is to capture only relevant service offences that could have been prosecuted in either civilian or service courts, my noble friend may have alighted on a very valid point. I therefore undertake to consider this matter further with a view to bringing back a suitable amendment at Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was debated in Committee. It is fair to say that it did not get a warm welcome from the Minister in responding to the debate. I was surprised to learn that the Government had no data at all on the number of people affected by the law before it was abolished. Clearly, the amendment is not going to be accepted by the Government tonight, but the noble Lord is right to keep raising the issue and I hope that it will keep being raised. It is only by doing so that we can explore what options are available to us, what happened in the past and whether it was right and whether, with hindsight, the offence should have been removed from the statute books many years before it actually was, as it was used in a way that discriminated against black people.

I hope that, when the Minister responds to this short debate, she can focus particularly on the amendment. In her response in Committee, the focus was as much on the previous debate, so I hope that it can focus particularly on the points voiced before us here today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for explaining the amendment, which was of course also tabled in Committee, seeking to confer a pardon on persons, living and deceased, who were convicted under that part of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 which was repealed by Section 8 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was originally a wide-ranging provision, and some of it is still in force today. The part with which the noble Lord’s amendment is concerned is the offence of being a suspected person, frequenting, in effect, any public place,

“with intent to commit felony”,

or, as it became, an arrestable offence. The noble Lord has illustrated from his own experience, and the Home Affairs Select Committee identified in 1980, that this so-called “sus” offence was used in a discriminatory and unfair way, particularly in relation to young black men. However, as the noble Lord has also acknowledged, not every conviction under this provision, certainly not going all the way back to 1824, was wrong or unfair. In fact, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded:

“The most powerful argument against ‘sus’ is that it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory offence in principle”.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 173, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, adds to the general duties of licensing authorities a duty of securing accessibility for disabled persons. The noble Baroness raises an important issue; we debated the matter under another amendment, which sought to add in the provisions of the Equality Act in Committee.

It is right to say that people running licensed premises should do much more to ensure that the premises are accessible by disabled people, so that they can go out with their friends and family and enjoy themselves on those premises. It is right that disabled people are able to get access to those premises. When the Minister responds to the debate we may hear that there are general duties under the Equality Act 2010 in force already and that adding a specific amendment does not add anything to the statutory requirements already in force, as noble Lords have said. I hope that we can get a very careful explanation of why that is the case. The Government have a general duty to ensure that the law is properly applied, so I hope that they will use this opportunity to say clearly how they can ensure that that actually happens.

The problem often is whether licensed premises owners fully understand what their obligations are—or, if they do understand, whether they do anything to make those reasonable adjustments. We need to have a very careful explanation from the Minister in response to the debate, because we have the whole issue of the guidance, what review mechanisms are in place, and how the Government are going to ensure that the mainstream access to buildings to which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred actually happens.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Thomas of Winchester, not only for their powerful speeches in this debate but for taking the time to speak with me over the past few weeks on the subject of this amendment. I also commend my noble friend Lord Shinkwin for the sheer quality of his speech and everyone who has spoken in this debate for their persistence in seeking to secure the rights of disabled people.

I am very sympathetic to the issues that have been raised on this matter. Licensed premises such as pubs, restaurants, theatres and cinemas are places where many of us choose to socialise and are therefore an important part of our daily lives. Too many of these venues are difficult for disabled people to access. The same is true of other, non-licensed businesses, too. The issue before us is whether we should use the regulatory framework provided for in the Licensing Act 2003 as a mechanism to enforce the provisions of a quite separate piece of legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others have answered this question in the affirmative, arguing that it should not be left to disabled people denied access to licensed premises to have to fight on their own to secure their rights. The contrary argument, which I set out in Committee, is that this amendment is seeking to skew the regulatory regime in the 2003 Act and use it for a purpose for which it was never intended. The amendment potentially puts us on to a slippery slope. If we can use the 2003 Act to enforce the obligations placed on businesses by other enactments, where does this stop? Are licensing authorities then to be charged with, for example, ensuring that pubs and restaurants are paying the minimum wage or complying with other aspects of employment law?

While it could be argued that the particular challenges faced by disabled people make this amendment a special case, we should not seek to downplay the fact that there will be a cost to business. I accept that the amendment does not place any new direct obligations on licensed premises as a class of business, as they are already subject to the requirement to make reasonable adjustments. However, if we are expecting licensing authorities to act as an enforcement agency in this regard, there will unavoidably be a cost to them in discharging this new function. As the cost of the licensing system properly falls on licensees rather than the council tax payer, consequently any increase in costs for licensing authorities will need to be passed on through increased licensing fees. We must take this into account when considering the amendment.

I have heard the powerful voices expressed in the debate here today. I cannot ignore the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House. I believe that there is scope for compromise around possible amendments to the Licensing Act, which would work with the grain of the existing licensing regime. I cannot say more at this stage, as there is further work to do to scope such a possible compromise, but nor can I give the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, any undertaking today that I will be able to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading. I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will agree to move forward on the basis of the preliminary discussions that we have had earlier this afternoon and, if not, perhaps we should come to a decision on her amendment today.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, these matters were discussed in Committee. I am very supportive of Amendments 46 and 47. As we have heard, designated bodies will get the power to make super-complaints to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, and these complaints can be made where, in the opinion of the designated body, a feature of policing may be harming the public and needs looking at. It is based on a system that works in the private sector and this is the first time it will be used in the public sector. Only designated bodies will be able to make super-complaints, and the process for designating these bodies will be set out in regulations.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, responds to this debate, it would be helpful if she said something about the timescale for the consultation processes, and when she expects these regulations to be laid before Parliament and come into force. I should also say that I am happy for the negative procedure to be used in respect of the regulations; perhaps the noble Baroness could bring that fact to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hyde of Ashton, who is of the opinion that I would never agree to the negative procedure being used for regulations in this House.

The proposals in this section of the Bill are a welcome move and will be a positive benefit to organisations and individuals that have legitimate concerns to raise. We are supportive of them and of these amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the opportunity to address the misunderstanding over Amendment 47, which was previously tabled in Committee. However, I am again going to have to disappoint the noble Lord as the Government cannot support either of these amendments. The Bill provides for the delegation of the ability to authorise those who can be designated bodies for the purposes of the new super-complaints system.

I welcome the noble Lord’s suggestions of who should perform this function but I do not agree that this task can be performed by bodies that might themselves want to raise super-complaints, or by multiple agencies. For the system to have legitimacy, we need to avoid a conflict of interest in this role. That is why the Bill creates this distinct role, as we do not consider it appropriate that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary designates the bodies that can come to it with super-complaints.

All three bodies put forward by the noble Lord could potentially add significant value as designated bodies, should they wish to apply. It would be a shame if, for example, Citizens Advice were precluded from raising issues through the super-complaints system. In the interests of a smooth and speedy process, I suggest that this role should be undertaken by an individual or single body, not by a committee.

The critical point here is that the criteria for designation are clear and unambiguous so that authorisation is a simple and objective process. That is why we will consult widely on the criteria in due course, and I encourage all those who have an interest to feed in their views. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about timing: it will be in the coming months.

Having consulted to establish clear criteria, we believe it is unnecessary to subsequently consult on any list of bodies deemed to have met the criteria, as required by the noble Lord’s Amendment 46. This risks slowing the whole system down, delaying designation and further delaying the point at which bodies can submit super-complaints to HMIC.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to consulting widely on the criteria. As part of that process, we would welcome the input of noble Lords on bodies or organisations that may be suitable for designation or for the role as the authorised person. I hope the noble Lord, having considered the Government’s arguments, will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is right that it would theoretically be possible to use the power to enable a firearm in that way. However, the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, as he has said, so it would require the unlikely agreement of the Home Secretary, both Houses of Parliament and at least one chief constable to decide that a staff member or volunteer should be given a gun. I leave it to my noble friend, with his vast experience, to judge whether that would be likely to happen. I take the point that he was making but I want to point out the hoops that would have to be jumped through for that to be achieved.

The noble Lord, Lord Blair, talked about the order-making power for defensive weapons. There is no such thing in the Firearms Act as a “defensive weapon”. It is not the nature of the weapon that is important but how it is used; a baton or a truncheon could be used offensively while a pistol could be used defensively. The consultation was clear that only police officers should use pistols or Tasers, and we think the Bill delivers that.

I shall finish with a quote from Chief Constable David Jones, the national policing lead for Citizens in Policing. He says:

“This is a very positive development … The proposals will open up new opportunities for people to use statutory powers who would like to be part of the volunteering police family but who are unable to commit to the rigorous and intensive selection and training requirements associated with the special constabulary. The proposals will empower Chief Constables to have a much more flexible resource platform … Chief Officers are best positioned to decide how to police their local area most effectively through the empowerment of their workforce, through their understanding and knowledge of the needs of their local communities”.

As I have said at previous stages of the Bill, no chief officer has yet made a decision to designate their staff with the power to carry and use a defensive spray. However, we believe that if a chief officer, using their professional judgment and experience, were to reach the view that it was necessary to issue such sprays to their PCSOs, after they have been well-trained in their use, they should be able to do so irrespective of whether those PCSOs are employees of the force or volunteers. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to withdraw his amendment and perhaps to address the question that I first put to him.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. A number of points have been raised. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that my concern all along has been the placing of these weapons in the hands of people without sufficient training.

I agree very much with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. We have to be very careful about the extension of these powers. As we have heard, so far no chief constable has empowered their present PCSOs to have these powers. The power is there already for PCSOs to be designated but no one has decided to do that yet.

The Government have not made a convincing case for the further extension of these powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, this is a broad power that we are now taking on board. I concur with his remarks about the fantastic contribution made by volunteers to the police service.

In response to the Minister, Clause 37 grants the extension of powers to police civilian staff and police volunteers. This extension is to those other staff who are not PCSOs but are volunteers or other designated staff. I do not see why, if they have not yet been tested on designated PCSOs, they should be extended at this stage. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, in moving Amendment 108A, has made a compelling case. No one wants anybody to be on pre-charge bail any longer than is absolutely necessary. Her amendments seek to take account of the realities on the ground in local police forces, and the Government should accept them and the flexibility that they offer to police forces. She gave detailed figures to support her argument, and my noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Harris of Haringey spoke about the realities on the ground and the risk of a significant burden on police forces.

We should of course set the number of days that an individual can be on pre-charge bail before the matter is reconsidered at a maximum that is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. There should not be a target date, which in the majority of cases will not be met. The noble Baroness suggests in her Amendment 109 that 56 rather than 28 days is a more realistic target to work towards. There appears to be little to be gained from bringing people back only to be rebailed because the inquiries have not been completed—often, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and my noble friend Lord Harris, because other agencies have not completed their work on behalf of the police within 28 days.

Amendment 115, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to commission, two years after the passing of this Bill, a report on the impact of the 28 days. That strikes me as a very wise thing to do and I hope that the Government will accept it. We want to ensure that Parliament and Government are informed with proper data before coming to a decision.

Amendment 116 in this group, which has not yet been referred to, is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. It responds to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is not in his place at the moment. The Government listened to that case and I welcome the fact that they have put forward an amendment today.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that what I say will assuage some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords—through Amendments 109, 113 and 114—about the proposed 28-day period of bail being too short.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed to research conducted by Professor Hucklesby and Professor Zander to justify extending the initial period of pre-charge bail from 28 to 56 days. I point out from the outset that, as part of our reforms, there is a presumption that a suspect who has been arrested will be released without bail—that is, there is a presumption against bail. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, rightly said, even though he does not agree with the Government’s position, bail has been overused and not used correctly. Over time, there has been a sloppy use of bail, if I may paraphrase what he said. Therefore, in a sense, we start from that position.

In reaching our view, we took full account of the research findings referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As I said in Committee, the 28-day period set out in the Bill was not arrived at by chance; we carefully considered the initial period of bail, taking into account the research in drawing up our proposals. We acknowledge that the research concludes that many cases will not be dealt with within 28 days. That is why the system allows for extensions in such cases, but only where such extensions can be justified. We consider that the involvement of superintendents at this stage would enable them to review the cases under investigation within their force and to chase any cases where required. I stress again that a central feature of these reforms is that there is a presumption that a suspect who has been arrested will be released without bail—where there is no bail, no 28-day or any other limit is in operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am conscious of the late hour and that the next business should be coming on, so I will be very brief. From our Benches, we certainly endorse the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has spoken in great detail on it. I do not intend to speak for much longer than that—but what is being highlighted here is very important. I will make one point: the amendment is not suggesting that all young people need is CAMHS; they need a holistic approach, so that their mental health needs can be properly assessed. It is not quite as stark as the noble Viscount or the noble Earl suggested. We certainly support the amendment on these Benches and I will leave it at that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her intention to ensure that children who have been abused have the proper provision following that abuse, mainly because they are often traumatised by their experiences. I share her desire to ensure that such children receive the support they need, including for their mental and physical health, but I must reiterate my strong belief that the overriding determinant of referral for health services must be clinical need.

Immigration Act

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. I further declare that the local authority that I am a member of has taken some of the children from Calais in recent weeks. I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place given earlier today.

We are dealing with children who are alone and in the most vulnerable of situations, and it is regrettable that a broad provision is being tightly restricted in a way that goes against the spirit of what Parliament agreed. Why are the Government restricting the eligibility of children over the age of 12 to those from two countries only, whereas for those under 12 that does not apply? Whether they are aged 11 or 13, the one thing they have in common is that they are children at great risk of harm. However, with this policy, if you happen to be 13 and are not Syrian or Sudanese, the UK is going to turn its back on you. How is that in the best interests of the child? Could the Minister please tell the House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it will perhaps be helpful if I repeat the criteria on which these children will be considered. We will be considering: all those children aged 12 or under, not just certain children from certain countries; all children referred to us by the French authorities who are assessed as being at high-risk of sexual exploitation; and those nationalities most likely to qualify for refugee status in the UK aged 15 or under.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for raising the important issue of the protection of complainants of rape and sexual offences from being questioned about their sexual history. It is vital that victims have confidence to report crimes as terrible as rape and in the criminal justice system’s process of bringing offenders to justice. Our message to those who are willing, but currently worried about reporting such offences, is that they are encouraged to do so. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham says, Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides that questions about a complainant’s sexual history are not allowed in rape and sexual offences trials. This is except where a strict set of criteria are met, so they are rare. The legislative bar on adducing evidence of a complainant’s sexual history is high and decided by judges on a case-by-case basis. The case that has prompted concerns about how the protective bar is operating has made no change to that.

We are aware of the recent concern about the admissibility of a complainant’s previous sexual history, and wider perceptions about the law. We accept that the concern should be looked at and we intend to deal with it. We have committed to looking at how the law is working in practice and will do so as expeditiously as possible, to understand whether any further action needs to be taken.

The noble Lord also asked whether anything has followed on from the 2006 Home Office study. The evaluation in 2006 made recommendations to ensure that the intention of the legislation would be fulfilled. There was no finding of a need to change the legislation substantially at that point.

With that brief explanation, I hope the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box as to whether she has announced the review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have carefully considered the concerns that have been raised about the provision and we will then determine how best to look at how it is working in practice before deciding whether any further action needs to be taken. We are going to do it as soon as possible.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To be clear—is that a review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining his amendments. As he suggests, I will first explain the government amendments in this group.

Amendments 203J and 203K respond to amendments tabled by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown at Commons Report stage. They seek to make two improvements in the operation of the licensing arrangements under the Firearms Act of 1968. Amendment 203J would remove some of the unnecessary administrative requirements that currently apply to the possession of expanding ammunition.

Expanding ammunition is designed to expand predictably on impact and was prohibited initially in relation to pistols in 1992. In 1997 the ban was extended to all such ammunition, even though it is in universal use for pest control and is required for deer-stalking under the Deer Act and Deer (Scotland) Act.

The current legislation does allow for expanding ammunition to be possessed, in order to carry out specific activities such as the lawful shooting of deer, estate management, the humane killing of animals or the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans. However, the legislation also requires that the individual possess a suitably conditioned firearm certificate for these activities.

The amendment would allow for the possession, purchase, acquisition, sale or transfer of expanding ammunition for rifles where the individual is in possession of a valid firearm certificate or a visitors firearm permit. The effect is—and I hope this goes some way toward answering the noble Baroness’s question—that the police will no longer have to include additional conditions on a certificate or permit, thereby removing some of the administrative burden that the current regime places on them.

Amendment 203K is intended to address the issues that currently arise with an application for the renewal of a firearms certificate that has been made prior to the expiry of the certificate but has not been determined by the police in time. Police forces have developed two different approaches in these cases. The first is to allow the applicant to remain in possession of the firearm, shotgun or ammunition, which means the applicant is in breach of Section 1 or Section 2 of the 1968 Act until the application has been processed. The second is to issue a temporary permit using the power in Section 7 of the Act.

I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not appropriate for certificate holders to be at risk of arrest and prosecution for an offence under Section 1 or Section 2 because the police have failed to process applications in time. Equally, it is not appropriate for the police to issue temporary permits to individuals whose substantive applications may subsequently be refused. The issuing of such permits also places an increased administrative burden on the police.

Amendment 203K will bring greater clarity in such circumstances by automatically extending the validity of firearm and shotgun certificates past their expiry date for a limited period of up to eight weeks. This will apply only where an application for renewal has been received by the police at least eight weeks prior to the date of expiry of the certificate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the problems were widespread or localised to particular forces. There were different levels of performance across different forces, and performance varies across some forces, meaning that some are better that others—so this is force-led.

Amendments 234A and 234B are consequential amendments to the extent clause.

I trust the Committee will agree that the two new clauses make sensible changes to the firearms regime and in doing so reduce the administrative burdens on the police without compromising public safety.

As my noble friend explained, his amendments relate to Clause 114, which strengthens the controls on deactivated firearms and thereby enhances public protection. I was pleased to meet my noble friend to discuss his concerns about this clause and I know that he has had a useful follow-up meeting, as he explained, with officials and one of the proof houses.

My noble friend has pointed to some of the difficulties that have been identified with the EU deactivation standards. The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and some of the most robust deactivation standards in Europe. The need for consistent, robust deactivation across member states has been the driving force for EU implementing regulation.

While the new EU deactivation specifications have been introduced, we have recognised that we need to strengthen deactivation measures for certain firearms. We now require additional measures that will align the EU standards with the exacting standards for deactivated weapons already in place in the UK. We have agreed this position with the European Commission. Moreover, the Commission has set up a small group of technical experts to help interpret and, if necessary, revise the standards, and the UK is represented on this group.

Some noble Lords may argue that, following the referendum result, we should drop this provision from the Bill. However, on leaving the EU we will still want to ensure that individuals comply with the relevant deactivation standards that we have in place. To that end, I am ready to explore future-proofing the definition of a defectively deactivated weapon as used in the clause.

I hope I have been able to reassure my noble friend that the offence in Clause 114 is necessary to strengthen our firearms controls, and that, having aired this important issue, he will be content to withdraw his amendment and support Clause 114 standing part of the Bill—and the Government’s amendments in this group.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I should have said in my earlier contribution that of course we fully support the government amendments in this group. However, I saw that they will cover only England, Scotland and Wales, and not Northern Ireland. Is that because Northern Ireland already has other provisions? The other parts of the Bill will of course cover all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did know the answer to that but I have forgotten it. Rather than give the noble Lord the wrong answer, I will double-check that and write to him and the Committee in due course.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, we have moved on to another part of the Bill. I should declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I do not serve on the licensing committee of Lewisham Council; I have enough to do on the planning committee. However, many years ago, I was a member of the licensing committee of Southwark Council. In those days, we considered only music and dance licences. One still had to apply to the magistrates’ court for a late-night alcohol licence. That has all changed and these matters are now under the control of the licensing committee.

This has been an interesting debate on four important amendments, all of which I support. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords made very valid points in respect of licensing authorities’ compliance with the provisions of the Equality Act. This is an issue of enforcement, rather than advice and guidance. Being able to remind licence holders of their duty is not good enough because it has not worked as effectively as it should. We should force licensed premises to be able to be used by disabled people.

My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe spoke about the need for a duty to promote health and well-being. Local authorities have such general duties but for there to be a specific requirement in respect of licensed premises is a new initiative. He made important points about the changes to availability of alcohol and consumption patterns. They have certainly changed. My noble friend was clear and we can all think back on how many pubs have closed while alcohol is more available in convenience stores and supermarkets. Things have changed in the past 20 years. He also made important points on the duty of authorities to look after young people and protect them from harm.

As regards the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has an impressive record in this House of standing up for live music and other cultural activities. He is right to stand up for grass-roots music venues, which have launched many a career in the entertainment industry. I agree with the noble Lord that music and other activities should be helped and supported where possible through the licensing system, rather than just regulated. I recall a debate on a different subject in the Moses Room, when we talked about a range of regulations that sometimes affect people going about their lawful business and allowing them to busk and so on. Decisions on this are being taken by officials of local authorities, rather than elected members, which is worrying. It is a slightly different but similar point. I also agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said about the industry.

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

My Lords, Amendments 210, 211 and 214A in this group seek to add to the list of licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003. In answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s question, there are currently four such objectives. These are: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The promotion of the licensing objectives is of paramount importance when authorities make licensing decisions, and each one carries equal weight.

Amendment 210 seeks to add,

“compliance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010”,

to the list of licensing objectives. As we have heard, the amendment flows from a recommendation made by the Equality Act 2010 and the Disability Committee, which reported in March. I was pleased to be able to respond in our debate on that. All four noble Baronesses who put their name to this amendment served on that committee.

The committee recommended that the Licensing Act 2003 be amended to make failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 a ground for refusing a licence. In their response published in July, the Government argued that, as employers and businesses were already under a duty to comply with the statutory obligations imposed by the Equality Act not to discriminate against staff or customers, the Act offered sufficient protection. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for the 2003 Act to duplicate the requirements of the 2010 Act, just as it would be inappropriate to make express reference to other legislation—such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 or the Noise Act 1996—all of which places requirements and responsibilities on licensing authorities and licensees.

Moreover, if we were to apply the logic of Amendment 122 more broadly, we should also be amending the Gambling Act, and indeed many other statutes, to place analogous obligations on those undertaking other forms of regulated activity. To single out the operators of businesses licensed under the 2003 Act could be taken as downgrading the obligations on all other businesses to similarly comply with the requirements of the Equality Act. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish to give that impression.

This is not to say that those running licensed premises should not be doing more to facilitate access by disabled people. Earlier this year the Minister for Disabled People held a round table event with disabled people and the hospitality industry to lead to a better understanding by service providers and businesses and a commitment from them to improve access and attitudes. Organisations represented at the round table made pledges to improve accessibility to their premises and improve their customer service for disabled people. For example, the British Beer and Pub Association pledged to update and promote its guidance on accessibility in pubs. This gives pubs advice on easy changes they can make to improve their service to disabled customers. These are very practical steps which will help to improve the day-to-day experiences of disabled people.

Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, seeks to add an additional licensing objective,

“to promote the health and wellbeing of the locality and local area”.

The Government are not unsympathetic to those who believe that there should be a greater role for public health within the licensing system, and we of course acknowledge the health harms attributable to alcohol. However, decisions under the Licensing Act have to be proportionate and made on a case-by-case basis. Unless it can be demonstrated that an application for a new licence is likely to undermine one or more of the licensing objectives, the licensing authority must grant the licence. The Government believe that any new licensing objective would need to be capable of standing alongside the existing objectives and function in the same way. Any new objective must therefore enable licensing authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to grant or refuse new applications, review licences and attach conditions or revoke licences.

Previous work has shown that it is difficult to establish direct causal links between alcohol-related health harms such as chronic liver disease and particular premises. Difficulties also remain with putting in place the necessary processes to enable the collection of such evidence—without which decisions based on health grounds would be unlikely to stand up to challenge. Work to date has established that the types of health data that are more readily accessible and most suited to use in a licensing context tend to relate to acute harms such as violent assaults and alcohol-related injuries. These harms, as well as most factors affecting well-being, such as crime levels and the welfare of children, can already be addressed through the existing licensing objectives, as demonstrated by the achievements of areas such as the Kensington area of Liverpool, Newcastle and Middlesbrough.

The Government will therefore continue working with Public Health England to facilitate access to local health data to inform decision-making within the current framework and to help public health teams play a role within licensing. Public Health England has also been testing a support package to assist with the development of local data collection and analysis based on lessons learned from the evidence-based work carried out in 2014-15. I assure the noble Lord that the Government continue to look at this matter seriously and will consider the findings of Public Health England.

Amendment 214A seeks to add,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”,

to the licensing objectives. This would require licensing authorities to consider the character of licensable activities, rather than purely protect against the potential harm caused by licensable activity. The existing licensing objectives seek to reduce harm that can be evidenced, and licence conditions which are intended to reduce the level of harm can be easily understood—for example, a requirement to restrict noise levels to prevent public nuisance.

It would be difficult to replicate this for “cultural activity and inclusion”, since this is quite a subjective matter and may be interpreted in different ways. For example, would a festival of Hindi films or Irish dance be considered good or bad in terms of cultural activity and inclusion? Making this a licensing objective could place licensing authorities in a censorious position, whereby licensees organising events might be obliged to explain what additional cultural value their entertainment might generate, and the licensing authorities would be required to evaluate that information.

The final amendment in this group, Amendment 212, seeks to add child protection bodies to the list of statutory consultees for statements of licensing policy. Each licensing authority is required to publish a statement of licensing policy and to revise it at least every five years. The statement sets out the general approach to making licensing decisions and managing the evening and night-time economy in the area.

Section 5(3) of the 2003 Act sets out a list of organisations and individuals who must be consulted when the statement is reviewed. The list includes the police, the fire and rescue authority and the public health body, but it is not intended to be exhaustive and therefore does not include all the responsible authorities. The 2003 Act does not prevent licensing authorities from consulting other bodies or persons as they see appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 214C, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, reduces the legal alcohol limits in England and Wales to match the limits introduced by the Scottish Government on 5 December 2014.

My noble friend Lord Harris made a particularly powerful point in respect of deaths caused through drink-driving. I am very supportive of this amendment, as I think we need tough laws on drinking and driving that are effectively enforced.

I also think that it would be quite good to have the same limit across the whole of Great Britain, and ideally the whole of the United Kingdom. This would make it much easier to understand for everyone concerned. I am also not against having a lower limit for commercial drivers and novices.

There is clear evidence that a reduction in the drink-drive limits would save lives. No one has said that is not the case. We have the highest limits in Europe. Only Malta has the same drink-drive limit we have in this country. The limit introduced by the Scottish Government is the same one that is in force in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Switzerland. So the case is powerful. In none of these countries is there a problem with the limit being effective.

The second amendment in the group, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, seeks to create a lower limit for novice and professional drivers. Again, I think that this is something we should consider. Many countries have this. That is certainly the case in many of the countries I read out, including Ireland and North Ireland. I think that it is important, if you are a professional or a novice driver, to have a lower limit.

I passed my driving test 36 years ago. I remember getting my first car—you are let loose and you are in there on your own. If you think about it, you are not very experienced at that point. Therefore it would be a good to enforce a lower limit. The fact is that our limits are comparatively high. I hope the Minister will respond to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. It is very good, and I hope that we will get a positive response from the Government. If not, I hope that the noble Baroness will bring it back on Report. I assure her that if she wants to test the opinion of the House at that point, we will support her.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I know that these amendments relate to concerns around the Government’s approach to drink-driving limits, particularly in light of changes in the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, more recently, with a proposed change in Malta to lower the drink-drive limit. First, I emphasise that tackling drink-driving is a priority for the Government and that, together with the police, we continue to take robust enforcement action against this reckless behaviour.

Other countries may have a lower alcohol limit, but they do not necessarily have a better record on reducing drink-drive casualties. While it is difficult to make direct comparisons, some stark contrasts clearly exist between ourselves and our European neighbours. Estonia, for example, with a population of 1.3 million, has a limit of 20 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and carries out 10 times more breath tests than we do in Great Britain. Yet 160 people died there in 2014 as a result of drink-driving. That rate is 30 times greater per head than in Britain. Closer to home, we can look at France. With a similar population to us, it suffers nearly four times the drink-drive fatalities that we do. Even taking into account those cases that fall between its limit and ours, we perform significantly better.

In many of these countries a first drink-drive offence gets you a fine and some penalty points. Indeed, in Northern Ireland they intend to bring in a fixed penalty notice regime. They will hand out penalty points to those offenders found to be over the new limit but under the old one. There is no appetite amongst the public or road safety groups in England and Wales to reduce the penalties and not disqualify offenders who flout the law. Nor would we wish to create in the minds of potential offenders the thought that they might get only a fine and penalty points and so encourage them to drink and drive.

In England and Wales, the success we have had in tackling drink-driving has been down to the severe penalties, rigorously enforced and backed up with hard-hitting campaigns, which now make this behaviour utterly socially unacceptable. Our roads continue to be amongst the safest in the world because we crack down on those who break the law. Last year we made it a requirement for those convicted of drink-driving offences to undertake medical tests to ensure they are not still dependent on alcohol before they are allowed to drive again.

The same legislation, the Deregulation Act 2015, also made an important change to drink-driving laws by removing the so-called “statutory option”, which allowed drivers who provided a breath test that was slightly in excess of the prescribed limit to demand a blood or urine test back at the station. By removing this provision, individuals have been denied the chance to sober up and so drop below the prescribed limit while waiting for a blood or urine sample to be taken.

Yes, there is always more to be done, but harmonisation with other countries with a poorer record of tackling drink-driving is not a reason in itself to lower the limit.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In this debate no one has said that we want to lower the penalties—just to lower the limits. We have a good record in this country, and I give credit to our police service for that. The noble Baroness’s amendment is asking only to reduce the limits. She did not talk about penalties or enforcement, and, of course, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, if we looked at the number of deaths caused under the limit enforced now and above the proposed limit, we could save more lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister said that the statistics on what is happening in Scotland will be available shortly. Is she telling the Committee that the UK Government will evaluate them when they become available?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the UK Government will look at them with great interest. There may be compelling evidence that comes out of them. Basically, the Government will look at them when they come out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this has been an important debate and I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Opposition.

I can support all the amendments in this group as far as they go, although some go further than others. I was particularly pleased to see the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, which extend posthumous pardons to Northern Ireland. However, further rights need to be won for LGBT people and women in Northern Ireland, as well as on the mainland. We must return to them at a later date.

I join my noble friend Lord Cashman in paying tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Sharkey, for their tireless campaigning. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman for his tireless campaigning to deliver equality for LGBT people. There has been tremendous progress in the past 20 years in particular, and my noble friend has been there, standing up, making the case and challenging prejudice, hate and injustice. We are all grateful to him. The most comprehensive amendments in the group are those in the name of my noble friend and they have my full support. I very much agree with him that granting a pardon to any person convicted of or cautioned for a now-abolished offence, providing they meet certain conditions, and regardless of whether they are living or dead, is the way to proceed. His amendments go further in that they extend pardons to those convicted or cautioned under Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Vagrancy Act.

My noble friend made it clear that nothing in his amendments would grant a pardon to any person convicted or cautioned for soliciting. Nor would the amendments grant a pardon to anyone convicted or cautioned in respect of conduct involving a person under the age of 16. My noble friend gave an important illustration of the effect of Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and I agree that it is important to right this wrong for both those who are living and those who are dead. Treat them equally. This is the right thing to do. No one would be pardoned for anything that is still an offence. I hope your Lordships’ House will accept my noble friend’s amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able, on behalf of the Government, to warmly welcome Amendments 214E, 214F, 214G, 239A and 246, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on bringing them forward, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who spoke so movingly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, explained, these amendments broadly do two things. First, they confer an automatic pardon on deceased individuals convicted of certain consensual gay sexual offences that would not be offences today. Secondly, they confer a pardon on those persons still living who have a conviction for such an offence that has been disregarded under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is important to note that for the pardon to apply, the conduct in question must have been consensual and involved another person aged 16 or over, which is the current age of consent. The conduct must also not involve an offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory, which is still illegal today.

This historic step is momentous in righting wrongs suffered by thousands of gay and bisexual men. It is a tragedy that people were criminalised over a shamefully long time for something that society regards today as normal sexual activity. It is time to right the wrongs of the past and I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in putting forward these amendments.

It is important that we link the pardons for the living to the disregard process so that the necessary checks can be carried out to identify whether the individual in question engaged in activity that constitutes an offence today. Since the disregard scheme under the Protection of Freedoms Act came into force, eight disregard applications that concerned non-consensual activity have been rejected. It is therefore crucial that a pardon for the living should only follow a successful disregard application. This mitigates the risk of individuals claiming to be cleared of offences that are still crimes today. It takes into account and protects the rights of victims and ensures that children and vulnerable people are safeguarded from potential risks. This is extremely important and an objective with which I am sure noble Lords would agree. It is for these reasons that the Government cannot commend to the Committee Amendment 214S in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lexden seek to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. The Committee will be aware of the established convention that the UK Parliament legislates on devolved matters in Northern Ireland only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Subject to observing that convention, the Government are ready to look favourably at amendments at a later stage of the Bill along the lines proposed by my noble friend.

I understand that on Monday of this week, the Ministry of Justice tabled an amendment to a legislative consent Motion before the Northern Ireland Assembly seeking its consent to the UK Parliament legislating on this matter. If the proposed legislative consent Motion can make sufficient progress over the next two to three weeks, I would anticipate that the Government will be able to work with my noble friend to come to an agreement before the Bill leaves this House. I should add that the Scottish Government have separately announced their intention to bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament.

I turn to Amendment 214R, which is again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. The amendment seeks to extend the disregard scheme to include convictions for the soliciting offence in the now-repealed Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Under the current disregard scheme, for the now-repealed offences of buggery and gross indecency between men, it is a relatively straightforward matter to establish whether the relevant statutory conditions are met; namely that the other person involved in the conduct consented and was aged 16 or over, and the conduct would not now constitute the offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory. In contrast, the soliciting offence in Section 32 of the 1956 Act covered a broad range of behaviours and, as such, it is not a straightforward matter to formulate additional conditions to ensure that behaviour which would still constitute an offence today cannot be the subject of a disregard. It is likely that any such conditions would entail more than simply establishing facts—for example, whether the other person was aged 16 or over—and require a shift to making judgments as to whether an activity would be captured by a range of different offences today. This creates some practical challenges in accessing records in sufficient detail to make that judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has explained, Amendment 214Q seeks to confer a pardon on persons living and deceased who were convicted under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. The noble Lord has explained that Section 4 was used to persecute young black men and this amendment deals with a separate matter to the one that we have just debated. It is, however, also the case that Section 4 was used to prosecute some gay and bisexual men, so there is a read-across to the earlier debate.

In relation to consensual activity between men over the age of consent, Section 101 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes it clear that the disregard scheme covers not only the offences of buggery and gross indecency but attempts to commit such an offence, and an attempt to commit such an offence includes conduct covered by Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. Someone with such a conviction may also apply for that conviction to be disregarded and, if successful, will also receive a pardon under the terms of the new clauses in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

As to other conduct unrelated to homosexuality, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to introduce a pardon for those convicted of an offence just because that offence has now been repealed and the behaviour in question is no longer regarded as criminal. Pardoning is exceptional by nature. The persecution of gay and bisexual men through the criminal law was a clear historical wrong that we should undoubtedly right through a pardon. There is a special and compelling moral case to try to redress wrongs done to gay and bisexual men in the context of the Government’s commitment to equality. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would, like the pardon for Alan Turing, remove a real and particular stigma that is suffered by the living and still attaches to the recently deceased.

The circumstances the noble Lord has described are quite different and, without looking at the facts of individual cases, it is impossible to know whether the conduct in question would still be an offence today.

In terms of the numbers, I was looking for inspiration but we have no data, I am afraid. On that note, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Does the Minister mean that she has no data here or no data at all?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No data at all, my Lords.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 181 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, would insert a new clause into the Bill concerning the procedures to be followed where a suspect is released without charge or informed after being questioned under caution that no further action will be taken against them. In considering the noble Lord’s amendment, I wanted to listen carefully to his reasoning for this proposed new clause, and I think that he has made a compelling case today. The noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Paddick, have extensive experience as senior police officers and the House should also take note of their support. I am not sure whether this should be addressed through an amendment to the Bill—I accept that point. There may be some other mechanism to address it, but the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has made a compelling case and I thank him for that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 181, tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford would require a custody officer to do two things once a decision has been made that no further action is to be taken against a suspect because the test for mounting a prosecution, set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, has not been met. First, the custody officer would need to notify the person in writing that no further action is to be taken. Secondly, the written notice must use the phrase “lack of evidence” to describe the reasoning behind the decision.

The Government agree with my noble friend that written notification should be given in all cases. We consulted on this in late 2014 and Clauses 65 and 66 would require a written notification to be given to any person arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence, where the police or Crown Prosecution Service subsequently decide not to charge. This applies whether or not the person is on bail following the reforms set out in Part 4 of the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment would go one stage further and require the written notification of no further action in those cases where a person is interviewed under caution on suspicion of an offence but not arrested. We know from anecdotal evidence that, since the amendment of PACE Code G in 2012, more cases are being dealt with by the police without arresting the suspect, which may have created a gap in police practice that my noble friend’s amendment identifies. In order to give this issue appropriate consideration, I would like to take it away and consider it further before Report.

The second limb of my noble friend’s amendment would require that the written notice and any other record used the phrase “lack of evidence”, rather than the customary “insufficient evidence” used at present. It may assist the Committee if I remind noble Lords of the evidential test required by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Paragraph 4.4 of the code states:

“Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be”.

The absence of “sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” could easily be characterised as a “lack of evidence” or as the presence of “insufficient evidence”. We could debate for some time the precise difference between the two phrases, which must be very small.

Noble Lords have said that there has been some comment in the media, in the light of recent high-profile cases, that the dropping of cases due to “insufficient evidence” could leave an outside observer thinking that there must have been something there. This reflects the reality of policing: that there has to be sufficient evidence to justify an arrest—that is, reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. However, the investigative process in such cases will often end up with insufficient evidence, or, to use my noble friend’s phrase, a “lack of evidence”, that could still mean there was some evidence, but not sufficient to charge.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The current version, dating from January 2013, is the seventh edition of the code, and every version since 1986 has stated essentially the same requirement for,

“sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”.

I say to my noble friend and other noble Lords that “insufficient evidence” seems to reflect the wording of the code test rather better and that it is the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service that the current phrasing has been used for more than 30 years and works well in practice.

While I recognise that the amendment would not change the test itself, to change the way that decisions made under the code are communicated, even to the small degree proposed by my noble friend, could create confusion, as there would be a tendency to ask which test should now be applied and whether it means the same thing. It could also invite doubt in the minds of prosecutors, judges, defence lawyers and others as to the reliability of decisions made against different tests.

I also point out to noble Lords that there are two tests in the Code for Crown Prosecutors that must be met before charges are brought. It is perfectly possible for there to be sufficient evidence to meet the first test, but for it none the less to be contrary to the public interest to charge, for example, where a case is to be disposed of out of court by way of a conditional caution.

While Clauses 65 and 66 set a requirement to notify a suspect that they will not be charged, that notice would need to be given in both scenarios; that is, where there was insufficient evidence and where the evidence was sufficient but charges were not in the public interest. However, under my noble friend’s amendment, a suspect would need to be told in all cases that they were not being charged due to a lack of evidence, even though there must be sufficient evidence to charge to get to the point of considering the public interest test.

I can say to my noble friend that the Government are sympathetic to his aim of giving greater certainty to those who are investigated but against whom charges are not brought. We are minded to achieve this by non-statutory means so that prosecutors retain the necessary flexibility in cases where a decision is taken on public interest grounds.

On the issue of written notification of a decision not to charge, the Government consider that Clauses 65 and 66 already require such notification in all cases where an arrest has taken place. However, I would like to give further consideration to the issue of those interviewed under caution without being arrested. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the precise wording of that notification is an issue best dealt with by non-statutory means and that, having heard my statement, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this group of amendments would greatly reduce the effect of the Government’s reforms to pre-charge bail by increasing the length of the initial period of bail from 28 to 56 days. As I have said, the purpose of these reforms is to end up with fewer people on bail for shorter periods of time, and thereby significantly enhance the human rights protections of those who have not even been charged with an offence, let alone convicted. As such, requiring each and every person granted bail to be given bail for eight whole weeks would significantly dilute the reforms—reforms that the Liberal Democrats supported strongly when they were proposed by the coalition Government.

The noble Lord said that the intention behind these amendments is to reduce the administrative burden on the police in operating the reformed pre-charge bail system. Although I do not deny that the new system will cause additional work for the police compared to the current position, this is inevitable given that we are reforming a system currently lacking appropriate safeguards. I would also say that the Government do not look at the extra work required as an administrative burden; we see it as requiring an appropriate level of intrusive supervision to ensure that pre-charge bail is used appropriately and that investigations are progressed diligently and swiftly. That goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about people having to return time and again to police stations.

I would also say that the figure of 28 days set out in the Bill was not arrived at by chance; we considered carefully the initial period of bail in drawing up our proposals, seeking to balance the administrative burden on the police with the need to put an end to the practice of people being bailed for months or even years at a time with no external scrutiny.

When we consulted publicly in December 2014 on the proposals, with the full agreement of the Liberal Democrats, who formed part of the coalition Government at the time, we received some 300 responses, two-thirds of which favoured the tightening of pre-charge bail and introduction of judicial oversight. Of the 135 respondents who expressed a preference, 58% favoured the model set out in the Bill, with an initial bail period of 28 days, extendable to three months by a senior officer. There was also strong support for an initial bail period of 28 days from groups as disparate as the Society of Editors, the Birmingham Law Society and the Magistrates’ Association. The Committee might also be interested to know that the Howard League for Penal Reform, a well-respected group of campaigners in this area, argued that pre-charge bail should be limited to a single period of 14 days without conditions.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the bail principles published by the College of Policing in October 2013, which stated that:

“In the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the bail period should be no more than 28 days”.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, there is clearly backing for the human rights improvements that would be brought about by a 28-day initial bail period from across the spectrum of public and professional opinion.

I also point out that, as set out in the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, almost one-third of bail cases—29%—are currently resolved within 28 days. We cannot therefore see how it would be either sensible or appropriate in those cases for the police to have a choice of either keeping those individuals on bail for a further four weeks or having to issue paperwork to terminate suspects’ bail and call them in for charging.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the other major change these reforms will make: that there will be a presumption in favour of release without bail, with bail being used only where it is both necessary and proportionate. This change in particular will allow the police to release many suspects without the administrative overhead that bail entails. It would also remove much of the stigma and inconvenience of bail from those released in this way. Because of this change, the police resources tied up administering straightforward cases will be freed up to concentrate on those cases where bail is truly necessary.

I have set out why the Government consider that the 28-day initial bail period is an appropriate first period, during which a significant proportion of cases will be resolved. The Government consider it crucial that the unfairness of keeping a person under investigation in “legal limbo” is addressed, as it cannot be right that they can spend months or even years on pre-charge bail with no judicial oversight, as happens at present.

As set out in the coalition Government’s response to the consultation, published in March 2015, the negative effects for individuals on bail and their families include emotional or mental trauma and financial implications. I also draw to your Lordships’ attention to the fact that, at the end of the coalition, in their 2015 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats included a proposal to place limits on the duration and conditions of pre-charge bail. Therefore, it strikes me as odd to hear the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asking to extend the initial bail period from 28 to 56 days. I recognise his laudable aim to reduce the administrative burden on the police, but extending the initial period to 56 days will, as I have said, either leave a large number of suspects on bail for no reason or require the police to do further work to call them in. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she comment on some of the academic research around this, which both I and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to? I think that we are all in agreement that no one wants anybody to go on bail for a day longer than absolutely necessary but it seems a bit odd that, if all the services that the police need to investigate their cases are taking more than 28 days—maybe up to six weeks—we have bail for 28 days. They could bring people back into the police station just to send them away again because the necessary information is not available.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the comments that I made about the presumption against pre-charge bail, which I think is compelling in the Government’s attempt to reform the system. There will be presumption in favour of release without bail—in other words, do not bail someone unless there is a good reason to put them on bail, which in many ways would free up the system. Bail should be used only where it is both necessary and proportionate. The fact that almost one-third of people are released within 28 days anyway is, I think, compelling evidence for the arguments that the Government are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 187A is very opportune and I hope that the Government will be pleased to see it. It stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser and would insert a new clause in the Bill with regard to pre-charge bail. The new clause would place a requirement on police and crime plans to include an annual assessment of the capability of the police to investigate crimes within the 28-day period. Proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment states that the assessment must consider the points as listed, which are,

“changes to the number of suspects released without bail … resource constraints … safeguarding requirements … and … issues around multi agency work”.

This list is not exhaustive but all these sorts of things could come into play if the police were able to deal with people on bail within the 28-day period. An annual assessment is a valuable tool in helping to ensure that targets are met and in identifying problems.

The second amendment in this group would give a power to the Secretary of State to make by regulation a requirement for agencies,

“to cooperate promptly with police”.

As we said in a previous debate, in seeking to meet the 28-day target, the police need to be confident that other agencies are working to deliver information to them. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to require agencies by regulation to assist the police within the 28-day limit. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has explained, these amendments seek to test the ability of police forces to complete investigations within the initial 28-day pre-charge bail time limit.

Amendment 187ZA would require police and crime commissioners to make an annual assessment of their force’s capability of investigating crimes within this initial pre-charge bail time limit. The Government consider that requiring such an annual assessment will only add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on PCCs and forces. First, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 requires PCCs to produce new police and crime plans only in the year of an election, so the amendment does not build on an existing process; it requires PCCs to produce something entirely new.

The Government acknowledge that the reforms to pre-charge bail will create a new system and that forces will need to build capacity at first and incorporate changes within their business processes. However, the changes will encourage and enable police forces to resolve cases within a time limit, resulting in a more efficient system for the long term.

Although bail will be limited initially to a period of 28 days, it is important to remember that the Bill’s provisions will enable an extension to a total of three months, which can be authorised by a senior police officer in complex cases. Furthermore, the police will also be able to apply to the courts for an extension beyond three months, which will have to be approved by a magistrate. While the police will, of course, aim to resolve cases in fewer than 28 days, they will be able to extend the bail period where it is necessary to do so. The requirement for senior scrutiny of extensions will avoid the issue of the past, where bail has been extended for months, or even years, without scrutiny outside the investigation team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, in her response to Amendment 187ZA she talked about external scrutiny of the police. Can she say a bit more about that? Is she saying that she expects that external scrutiny to look specifically at the issues here in a broad-brush review? If so, where will they get the data from? I assume that they will be collected by the police.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there will be a number of sources of data within the police, and the annual monitoring by HMIC’s PEEL inspection programme, which considers all the police’s effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy, will form part of that external scrutiny.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Baroness can check this and come back to me, but I would expect then that the data would actually be collected.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord says, I will go away and give him more detail on that, either before Report or on Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for that response, and at this time I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 195, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and also in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser and others, would ensure that child victims of sexual abuse receive the mental health support that they need and would address the fundamental problem that, as things stand, victims too often have poor access to the support that they need. The Bill makes welcome provisions in the area of mental health—including by ending the detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 of young people in police cells—but it could go further, in particular, in recognising the mental health needs of children who have been victims of child sexual exploitation.

NSPCC research shows that children who have been abused are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as well as self-harming and suicide. The cases of 30 children supported by the Children’s Society were analysed in its report Old Enough to Know Better?—a third of the cases noted that the young people needed mental health services because of concerns about their well-being, including self-harming episodes, suicide attempts or even episodes of psychosis that required in-patient admissions. The remaining cases also referred to the young people feeling low, depressed, anxious, fearful, or having flashbacks of their abuse. I think that the Government should accept this amendment from the noble Baroness this evening.

Amendment 221 in this group is in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It would place in the Bill a duty for police forces to disclose information about children who are victims of sexual exploitation or other forms of abuse to the relevant health service commissioners. This is an important requirement to ensure that victims of exploitation can have access to the health services that they need.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for their explanation of the amendments. We appreciate that their intention is to ensure that the proper provision is made for vulnerable or traumatised children. We absolutely agree that we must ensure that such children never fall through the gaps between services, but I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that the overriding determinant of referral for health services must be clinical need. Not all children and young people who have been abused or exploited will develop a mental health problem, and intervening unnecessarily or inappropriately can in itself be harmful.

All that said, it is essential that healthcare practitioners who work with abused children and young people should have the capacity and capability to provide evidence-based treatment where needed. This will be addressed through the emerging workforce strategy, which is being put in place to deliver the key proposals in the Department of Health report on children’s mental health. The Department of Health is also introducing routine procedures so that sensitive inquiries are made to establish whether a child undergoing a mental health assessment has experienced neglect, violence or abuse. This will be an important step towards establishing a child’s or young person’s need for support. The important thing is that children and young people get the right care at the right time, based on their needs, not on a non-clinician’s view of their potential needs based on their experiences.

On amendment 221, it is worth adding that individuals, including children where appropriate, need to consent to receive treatment. Where a person indicates that they would like to avail themselves of any referral, consent can be sought for relevant personal details to be passed to the health provider, which is the proper course of action. It would be likely to be inappropriate, and in breach of data protection, automatically to pass on personal details and potentially sensitive information, even to a health provider. It may be helpful for noble Lords to know that NHS England published a Commissioning Framework for Adult and Paediatric Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARC) Services in August 2015, which outlines the core services in SARCs and referral pathways to other services. They are now being rolled out throughout England.

On the basis of my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness feels content to withdraw her amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I think the noble Earl raises an interesting point—I feel that I have learned something. I am not convinced that the amendment should be in the Bill; it is the sort of thing that should be sorted out in guidance or in a letter to the various police forces. If the noble Earl is right, it should be sorted out quite simply.

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

My Lords, I begin by declaring that I am not the owner of a tank-carrying vehicle and I therefore hope that I speak from a neutral point of view.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation about abnormal loads and, in particular, the electronic service delivery for abnormal loads, or ESDAL. It is a government-funded portal built for this purpose and free to use. However, some hauliers prefer to use other methods of transmission, as he pointed out, such as fax, email, hard copy or proprietary software.

The decision on which methods to accept lies with individual chief constables. As my noble friend is aware, the provisions for use of abnormal loads are laid out in the Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003, to which he referred. Schedule 5 to the order, which deals with notices to police states:

“The Notice must be in a form acceptable to the recipient and should be agreed by both parties.”

Commercial software owners and hauliers may argue that a chief constable is not complying with the 2003 order if he or she limits the methods for accepting the notification and the haulier does not agree. However, the order makes it clear that the form of notification must be acceptable to the recipient and there is very good reason for that requirement. Obliging chief constables to accept notification in all the forms proposed in the amendment could have negative practical and resource implications for the police. Moreover, as a matter of principle, it would not be appropriate to intervene in operational matters in this way.

I also suggest to my noble friend that this is not an appropriate matter for primary legislation, given that the Secretary of State already has the power to amend the detailed provisions laid out in Schedule 5 to the 2003 order.

Notices to road and bridge authorities are covered separately in Schedule 9 to the 2003 order. Again, it does not specify the form the notice should or could take, but states that it must be acceptable to the authority to which it is to be given and should be agreed by both parties. So a bridge or highway authority would not be obliged to accept email notification generated by ESDAL if it was not reasonably acceptable to it.

My noble friend asks about the consequences of an operator notifying a police force by a means which is not accepted by the recipient. It is a condition of an operator obtaining authority to transport an abnormal load that it notifies the police in accordance with Schedule 5. If it provides notification in a form which it has been informed is not acceptable to the recipient, it would be difficult for it to claim to have met the conditions set out in the 2003 order.

If an operator has not met these conditions, it will not be authorised to use on the road a vehicle that does not,

“comply in all respects with the standard construction and use requirements”.

On that basis, if it were to proceed with an abnormal load movement on a road, it would be committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988. I know that my noble friend will have hoped for a rather different response, but I hope that, having had this opportunity to debate this issue, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down—and I should say that I am not the owner of a tank either—I do not see why it can be said that an electronic means of communication in the 21st century is an unreasonable way of giving this type of notice. Something like this cannot be beyond the wit of man to sort out. If we are just going to rely on the post it really is not a very efficient way of doing things.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What I have said is that the order specifies that the notice must be in a form that is acceptable to the recipient. If the recipient—Merseyside Police, for example—insists that it is an online application, then that is the form in which it is acceptable. But it should be agreed by both parties—in other words, it is not “must” but “should”.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Are we saying that it would be acceptable if they insisted on receiving only a letter? That seems ridiculous in the 21st century.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No, an online application may be acceptable, an email may be acceptable, pigeon post may be acceptable—but it has to be acceptable to the recipient.

EU: Unaccompanied Migrant Children (EUC Report)

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the European Union Committee for producing its report on unaccompanied migrant children in the EU, and thank all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in this debate.

The Government recognise the plight of unaccompanied migrant children in Europe and we are addressing this on a number of fronts. We take our commitments towards these unaccompanied migrant children extremely seriously. We have already made significant progress in speeding up the transfer of children who already have close family members in the UK. The Government began work on this under the Immigration Act immediately after the Bill gained Royal Assent. Since Royal Assent and before 1 October, we have transferred more than 50 children—commonly known as the “Dubs children”—under the criteria of the Immigration Act. Since 10 October we have transferred more than 300 children from Calais, including more than 60 girls.

I must make it clear, and I am sure noble Lords know, that we need the permission of sovereign member states to operate on their territory and we need to abide by their laws. We are focusing on France, Greece and Italy but we can operate only in ways agreed with those member states. It is important to make that clear at this point.

We are also working with local authorities to ensure that children are fully supported on arrival in the UK, and we are making progress on the national transfer scheme, including a commitment to increase funding. We encourage more local authorities to come forward. At this point, I pay tribute to the local authorities which have come forward. People have mentioned local authorities which have been so good, such as Hammersmith and Ealing—what was the other one?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

There is Lewisham.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Lewisham, yes. Because people were mentioning London, I thought that I would pick out some really good ones there. There is also Kent, of course, which should really be thanked for its efforts. Accompanying what local authorities are doing, we have substantially increased their levels of funding to provide care for these unaccompanied children. The daily rates have increased by more than 20% and we have made an additional £60,000 available for each region to co-ordinate its efforts.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talked about the wider commitment regarding the 20,000 refugees from the Syrian region. We have had pledges from local authorities which will enable us to meet that commitment. So far, we have had nearly 3,000 people from that total of 20,000, so we fully expect to meet that commitment by 2020. The children accepted under Dublin III or the wider Immigration Act criteria are in addition to, not subtracted from, that 20,000. In addition, the UK supports a number of unaccompanied children who arrive directly in the UK through our resettlement schemes and the refugee family reunion visa route.

As well as bringing children to the UK, we are supporting partners across Europe. The UK has established a £10 million refugee children fund for Europe particularly to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children arriving in Europe. The fund includes targeted support to meet the specific needs of unaccompanied and separated children. That support includes identifying children in need, providing safe places for children at risk, data management to trace children to their families and services such as counselling and legal advice. However, our overall approach must focus further upstream to reduce the incentives for refugees to put their lives at risk by making perilous journeys to Europe. We are and always have been clear about our moral responsibility to assist those who are suffering, including by providing support in conflict regions, development work upstream and protection to those who need it. The Government are fully committed to providing a wide-reaching response to the refugee crisis that protects children.

Perhaps I may move on to some specific questions from noble Lords. There were quite a few, so I hope I can get through them. I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who asked about speeding up the process. I think I have gone through that but she also talked about guardianship, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. The Government believe that the addition of a guardian to the existing framework risks adding another level of unhelpful complexity to those arrangements. The statutory arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are that they are looked after by local authorities, in keeping with the arrangements for all children in the UK.

A number of points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about whether our children will be treated the same as children who might come into our care from other countries, and vice versa. The answer is absolutely yes. Once children are in our care, it is the responsibility of local authorities and, indeed, the state to ensure that they are looked after as if they were our own children. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are provided with a professional social worker and will also have an independent reviewing officer to oversee their care arrangements.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the latest figures from Calais. I think I provided them. There were more than 300 children. We are still working to transfer further children eligible to come to the UK. Over the next few weeks we expect several hundred more children to come to the UK. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord McConnell, also asked that question.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, alluded to the fact that the Government committed to publishing a safeguarding strategy by 1 May 2017 which will set out details on how unaccompanied and refugee children arriving in the UK should be safeguarded. I am glad the noble Lord mentioned the strategy so that I can say something about it. It is being published today and will cover both Dublin and Dubs. Best interests will be part of evaluating our process. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is always very clear about the best interests of the child being met. Whether the UK will participate in Dublin following Brexit will be a key part of the considerations as part of the process of leaving the EU.

We are working to identify children in Italy and Greece. We must remember that for Dubs we are identifying children who entered the EU before 20 March. We do not want to incentivise children to take perilous journeys. That has been clear all along. We are working closely with the Greek authorities, the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and NGOs operating in Greece to identify children. We are doing all we can, but we must remember that we are working on Greek territory and can work only with Greece’s full agreement. We have a full-time secondee based in Greece, plus a number of staff deployed as part of wider efforts on migration, and we have 58 experts under the EU-Turkey deal. We are working hard to overcome a number of challenges including varied lists of children; a number of separated rather than unaccompanied children; nationalities that would not normally qualify for refugee status; and the EU’s relocation scheme that may relocate some of the children. In Italy, we have offered to help process cases, but so far we are waiting for agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about the delay in the Government’s response to the report. I take this opportunity to apologise for the delay. The Government welcome the report and have fully considered it. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the visible progress we have made with transferring children to the UK demonstrates our commitment to the issue. We support the principle of family reunion, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked about, but the Government have no plans to change their policy on family reunion because there are several routes for families to be reunited without the need for children to travel to the UK illegally. The Government believe that the wrong kind of family reunion policy will lead to more children setting out unaccompanied on journeys that will put their lives at risk, and we do not want that. We have granted more than 22,000 visas under this policy over the past five years.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, asked about the wider refugee effort. We believe that the best way to help the majority of the many millions of displaced individuals across the globe is through practical and political action within the affected regions. As noble Lords will know, we have pledged £2.3 billion to the Syrian relief effort, which is double the amount originally pledged. Helping the people in Syria and the neighbouring countries in the region reduces the need for them to make perilous journeys to the EU. Our approach is to resettle the most vulnerable directly from the affected regions.

In terms of the Mediterranean response and Africa, the UK is providing £70 million to the Mediterranean migration crisis response, while nearly £9 million is allocated to the wider response in Africa and to research. The UK participates fully in vital life-saving and countermigration activities in the Mediterranean. To date, the UK assets of Operation Sophia and those operating in support of FRONTEX have saved more than 17,000 lives, I am very proud to say.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about best interests, which I dealt with in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We absolutely think it is a primary consideration and we welcome EU efforts to ensure this principle is fully implemented in all member states. The Government also agree that children must be registered as quickly as possible in the first member state in which they arrive.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked about age assessments and support for over-18s. We use a number of determining factors for assessing age including credible and clear documentary evidence proving a claimed age, and physical appearance and demeanour, although I take the point about children being changed as they undergo extreme hardship and stress. The Merton-compliant age assessments which we use in this country are undertaken by a local authority and must be signed off by two social workers. As I explained to the House the other week, we do not use dental X-rays. The British Dental Association is opposed to using them, and has described them as “inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical”. In terms of support for over-18s, in July the rates for care leavers rose by 33%.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about expedited family reunions and the process from Greece and Italy. We have obviously prioritised in France given that the situation was particularly difficult, but we are working closely with the Greek authorities, UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and NGOs operating in Greece, as I said earlier. He also asked about access to Dublin and Dubs across the EU. The Dublin regulation obviously applies across the EU, while Dubs is part of our own national law and is not EU law. However, we continue to ensure that the Dublin process of transferring cases into and out of the UK works effectively, while for Section 67 of the Immigration Act, we are focusing on France, Italy and Greece. The Act is clear that it must be refugee children. In responding to the migration crisis, we must remember that not all migrants are refugees.

In terms of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme is supporting vulnerable children. In the year ending June 2016, almost 50% of those included were children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, talked about minors in the camp. Ahead of the camp clearance, the French authorities gave their assurance that any migrants, including children, would be accommodated and supported if they were willing to claim asylum in France, and more than 5,000 migrants took up that offer. She talked about our relationship with the French. We continue to work closely with them. On managing the Calais camp clearance, we are prioritising the assessment and transfer of the youngest, as she asked, and those at high risk of sexual exploitation, which is only right and proper. She talked about the UN refugee convention. As a signatory to the 1951 convention, the UK has a long tradition of providing protection to those who need it most, and we fully consider all asylum claims lodged in the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, talked about unaccompanied children. Of course we recognise the plight of, and terrible experiences suffered by, some of those unaccompanied migrant children in Europe, and we continue to work with the Italians and the Greeks to identify them. The noble Lord made a really important point about working with member states and the EU to protect children and ensure that they do not go missing, and we note the European Commission’s new proposal to lower the age of fingerprinting of children from 14 to six. The Government welcome that proposal in respect of safeguarding children.

I think that I have answered all the questions. If I have not, I will write to noble Lords. I thank noble Lords for the very good points that they have made in this debate and apologise for the late arrival of the response. As I said, I shall follow up in writing any points that I have not answered.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I very much support the police. They do a fantastic job for us and put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.

The noble Lord is right when he talks about the need for an appropriate relationship between the media and the police, and how important that is. Equally, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, there are obviously times when things go wrong. Clearly what happened at Hillsborough was an absolute tragedy. Can you imagine losing a loved one on that day and then having to endure the abuse in the media which has clearly now been shown not to be true? We should pay tribute to the steely determination of the Hillsborough families to get justice for their loved ones. They not only lost them but saw their names dragged through the mud.

It is important that we get to the point where the Government can clarify that they will proceed with the second stage of Leveson. There are some nuances between the statement we had from the previous Prime Minister and what we had from this Dispatch Box more recently. That difference might just be a few words which mean nothing at all, but we need to be clear that this should go ahead and that the Government are determined that any prosecution dealing with this will proceed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, which took place not far from where I live.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained, this amendment would require the Prime Minister to establish what is colloquially referred to as the Leveson 2 inquiry into the relationships between the police and the media. It is worth noting that the drafting of this amendment goes beyond the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry. Part 1 examined the culture, practices and ethics of the media; if it goes ahead, Part 2 is to examine wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the failure of the first police investigations into phone hacking and the implications for police and press relations.

This amendment would, for example, extend the remit of Leveson 2 to cover how the police investigated any complaints about their dealings with people connected to the media, and to the conduct of the CPS where complaints led to criminal investigations. This is well outside the scope of the current inquiry terms of Leveson 2. The Government are of the view that it is not necessary to legislate to require Leveson 2 as it is already set up under the Inquiries Act 2005. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are still ongoing criminal cases relevant to the subject matter of the Leveson inquiry. I welcome the fact that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause recognises the importance of not prejudicing those outstanding criminal proceedings. We have always been clear that these cases, including any appeals, must conclude before we consider part 2 of the inquiry. Given this, and the fact that we already have an appropriate legal framework in the Inquiries Act, it is not an appropriate matter for further legislation. There is an established process in place for taking this matter forward. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am talking about the powers that volunteers may have in the round. There may be myriad different powers, not just the one that we are focusing on.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about policing on the cheap. I remember that when PCSOs were introduced, I said, “Oh, it’s only policing on the cheap”, but actually I have seen the really good benefit that they have brought. As my noble friend Lady Redfern says, they are not a replacement for the police force but a really valuable extra on the streets of Lincolnshire, providing crime fighting for the police.

On that very lengthy note, and thanking all noble Lords for their interventions, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would like to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—quite an extraordinary debate really, has it not? We talked about helpful PCSOs and the work they do helping communities; we got on to CS spray and other sprays. They may be issued with guns—we are not quite sure. We were then told that the Government also want to take a power in case things are invented in future. I am pleased I tabled the amendment: it has certainly dragged a few things out from the Government for us. I think we will have to come back to these issues on Report. I hope that the Government will look at our debate, because there are one or two loose ends hanging there.

The most important contribution came from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Condon. Both of them have been very senior police officers, and if they are expressing concerns, the House should listen very carefully. It is important when we grant any new powers that we make sure that people are trained properly to use them. As we heard, these sprays can kill people, which is really serious. We must worry about putting anything in someone’s hands that can do that.

I also want to pay tribute to volunteer PCSOs, who do a fantastic job as the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, outlined. I will leave it there, but I am sure we will come back to these issues on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Amendment 174, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and my noble friend Lady Henig, is in the clause dealing with police ranks. It amends Clause 46 to require the rank of superintendent as well as that of constable to be retained. We heard from both the noble Baroness and my noble friend who put their names to the amendment about the important role that the officers holding this rank play. That was confirmed by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Paddick, in their contributions.

I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, when she spoke about the holders of these ranks being senior officers taking senior operational roles. They are held by people with the ability to undertake those important strategic roles and it is accepted that they have departmental and functional responsibilities.

My noble friend Lady Henig also spoke about the importance of the role these officers play across the piece in all departments. I also recall the Sheehy report, and the abolition of chief superintendents being very controversial at the time. As my noble friend said, they were then quietly brought back a few years later. We have heard from a number of speakers who are former serving officers as well as Members of this House who served as chairs of police organisations, and know much more than I do about police operations. They have all reached the same conclusion, so I suggest that the Minister should reflect on what has been said. I hope that she will give a very warm response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for this amendment, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to our police superintendents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about constables but I think he meant superintendents.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Yes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is late at night and I am just making sure we are on the same page. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, called them the “filling in the sandwich”.

In the current policing structure, superintendents play an incredibly important role. They set strategy, they are responsible for day-to-day operational policy and in difficult situations they have to show leadership, manage serious risks and make critical decisions during ongoing operations. These are crucial functions that will continue to be a feature of senior ranks in policing. However, there is a lack of flexibility—a word we have used a lot tonight; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, just used it—in the way that ranks are effectively stipulated in primary legislation. That is why Clause 46 will allow the College of Policing to recommend a new rank structure to the Home Secretary to be set out in regulations.

In June last year, the College of Policing published the findings of its leadership review, which included a recommendation to review the rank and grading structures in policing. In its report, the college said that flatter structures can enable organisations to be more responsive and communicate more effectively. The police-led review of the rank structure is being developed by the chief constable of Thames Valley Police, Francis Habgood, working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that proposals will be effective for all forces. The intention is to support policing based on greater levels of practitioner autonomy and expertise. Francis Habgood has developed a proposal for a five management level-model that will sit on top of the existing rank structure and will be based on competence, contribution and skills.

Hate Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it most certainly was not because we are all free to express our opinions. It is absolutely right that this country is a country in which we can express our opinions. The line lies where that expression incites people to commit hate crimes.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, racist and religious instances of abuse jumped 41% in the month after the UK voted to leave the EU. Does the Minister attribute that rise to some of the more unpleasant aspects of the EU debate? What further actions are the Government taking and what are the review mechanisms in place in government to ensure that we have the most effective, tough and up-to-date laws to tackle anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all other forms of racist and religious abuse?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: in the post-EU referendum period we did see a spike in hate crimes, particularly those that were racially motivated. I held a number of round tables with people of different religions in Manchester and met the Polish ambassador following the graffiti and hatred directed towards the Polish community in Hammersmith. It was very clear that it was a spike in crime motivated by people who used the EU referendum as an opportunity to vent their hate. I am very pleased that those figures have now calmed right down to almost normal levels. However, it teaches us a lesson that, in light of events that might cause such feelings, we need to quell them quickly.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her cogent and precise explanation of this draft statutory instrument. I am not able to discern from looking at the papers before us whether the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2016 as a statutory instrument has any reference to Wales. Perhaps the Minister’s officials may be able to advise her. My guess is that it does not, but perhaps the information can come forward for the convenience of the Committee via officials. If it is not applicable, are we able to understand today how it may indirectly be applied to the Principality? Some information would be helpful. Even though more and more Members of your Lordships’ House have a link to and a residence in Wales, it is harder and harder to obtain information about the Principality given the establishment of the Welsh Assembly.

Lastly, and with no great seriousness, looking at the Explanatory Note and at the last list of substances that have legitimate medical uses, can I invite the Minister—who has great ability—for the convenience of the Committee to pronounce the last three substances?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the order before us today and say at the outset that we fully support them and what the Government are trying to do. I see in my briefing note that synthetic cannabinoids are also known as Spice, which I will use as it is easier. There were 29 deaths from these drugs in 2011 and that figure rose to 67 in 2014. Spice can cause aggression and delusions and worsen mental conditions and clearly is a very dangerous substance. We must do what we can to get it off the streets.

Figures from the Centre for Social Justice show that officers from 32 police forces attended 3,807 incidents in 2014, up from 1,400 the previous year. The Prison Ombudsman reported that between June 2013 and January 2016 there were 58 fatalities where the prisoner was thought to be, or suspected of being, involved with the substances before their death.

I do not know whether the Minister has any evidence or any information regarding admissions to A&E departments. I am sure there will be a number of these and ones where these drugs were taken with other substances. As I said, I fully support the order but I have a number of other points and questions for the Minister. If she cannot answer them now I would be very happy for her to write to me.

These drugs are still covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act so why are we moving across to the Misuse of Drugs Act? There is also a possession offence with this Act. How is that going to be policed? It would also be helpful if the Minister could say something about how schools, colleges and universities deal with young people’s exposure to these drugs and more generally about the quality of drug and alcohol education provision. I understand that the drugs strategy is going to be published in the next few weeks. Can she say a bit more about that, particularly about education and prevention? Does she see an intelligence gap in our ability to police the levels of Spice in the UK, being imported into Britain and being stockpiled? I am conscious that she may not be able to answer these questions here, and I am content with the order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I shall go through the various questions they have asked. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned the fact that no reference is made to Wales, but these orders apply to England and Wales. He asked about the last three substances mentioned in the order—telmisartan, viminol and zafirlukast. The noble Lord wants to intervene.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said, a collaboration agreement could vastly improve the quality of a service, which is a good thing, but it may not save any money. However, the improvement of the quality of that service may be deemed to be very effective in that collaboration agreement. It obviously ties to both: it could increase the efficiency or it could increase the effectiveness. The happy outcome is that it might improve both. I hope that that is a decent explanation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I have just one point. Could it be more effective and less efficient or vice versa?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It could be.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 8th September 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Earl made a good point; I hope that I covered it when addressing the speeches of other noble Lords. There has to be proportionality in this. “Nuisance and annoyance” could be someone walking their dog, but clearly that would not be proportionate. I think that that is what the refreshed guidance will cover, and I will be pleased to hear from the noble Earl if he thinks that we have not struck the balance right. Indeed, one person’s nuisance is something that another person does not even notice. I thank him for his comments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I was quite shocked by the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I am pleased that he brought it to our attention. The examples are absolutely ridiculous. It is important to get the guidance right because clearly one problem with PSPOs has been that they can come down to, “I don’t like that, so it has to be banned”. When the new guidance comes out, it will have to be very clear and state, “These things are not a nuisance”, with examples of what PSPOs can and cannot be used for.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will not pre-empt the guidance, which has not yet been written, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, brought up some ridiculous interpretations of the orders. We duly note what he said and the councils he mentioned and I am sure that those examples will be taken into account. It is always dangerous to get too prescriptive because that then allows wriggle room the other way. But we will firm up the guidance and refer back to noble Lords.

Assets of Community Value

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review and strengthen the law concerning assets of community value.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in their 2015 manifesto this Government committed to strengthening the Community Right to Bid. We have spoken to stakeholders—from local authorities and community groups to property owners—listening to their reflections and experiences of how the Community Right to Bid is working in practice. Their views will allow us to develop options to strengthen the policy, as we set out in the manifesto commitment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. Moving the definition of “assets of community value” from just land and property would enable the concept of community value to be extended further. For example, the loss of a rural bus route or the closure of a local newspaper are issues of real community concern. Will the noble Baroness agree to meet with me and campaigners to discuss the issue further and discuss anomalies in the implementation of the policy since its inception?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly undertake to meet the noble Lord—I have seen a lot of him over the last few months—and conversations like that will inform the development of the policy.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to my declaration of interests and declare that I am a locally elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

We have discussed the neighbourhood right of appeal on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House, and I was convinced that the limited right of appeal, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has put forward on a number of occasions, was the right approach. However, despite that and numerous discussions, the Government have not been persuaded that this is the correct way forward. That is disappointing.

The government amendment agreed in the Commons makes some moves in the right direction but, as the noble Baroness told the House on 4 May, what is proposed here, set out on page 5 of the Marshalled List before us today, is what you would expect any good local planning authority or planning officer to do anyway. Therefore, I am under no illusion that what is before us from the Government is a particularly significant concession. As I said earlier, that is disappointing, and we should go a bit further.

When I look at this Bill, I often reflect back on the Localism Act. It appears that the government Benches are less keen on localism than they may have been a few years ago. In general, they talk about localism when they like what is going on, and when they do not like it, we have to do what they say. As I said, there is a bit of a hokey-cokey on localism from the government Benches. That is not the way to go, and it is disappointing. The noble Baroness has given us another possibility, and maybe we will have some good news from the Minister.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her amendment and for the way she has worked with me throughout the passage of the Bill—she might think not to very great effect, but we have had extensive debates regarding a neighbourhood right to appeal, and I am pleased that we are able to return to this issue in quite a constructive manner. We all agree on the importance of neighbourhood plans and we wish to see the planning system working without unnecessary costs and delays. We also wish to see the planning system deliver sustainable development and the homes our communities need.

While I very much welcome the direction of travel of the amendment, which is focused on the call-in process, now is not the time to pursue the matter. This issue was not part of the original Bill and the other place has made clear its approval of the Government’s amendment in lieu. The Minister for Planning and Housing has made it very clear that he is willing to work with colleagues to return to this issue in due course. I hope that this is as encouraging to noble Lords as it was to certain Members of the other place—and particularly to organisations such as CPRE which have lobbied on this matter.

Although the Government cannot support this amendment, I understand the advantage of an approach that is based on the existing call-in system and the constructive manner in which it was laid. The Government are willing to look at this issue further, and I hope that provides the reassurance to the noble Baroness for her to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I was surprised that the Government rejected the Lords amendment in the other place last night and am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has brought back another amendment to be considered today by your Lordships’ House.

Resistance to this measure is puzzling to say the least. Delivering zero-carbon homes is an important standard that we should strive to achieve. It helps reduce our carbon footprint and gives people living in the properties to be built cheaper fuel bills.

In previous debates, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, have relied a number of times on the opposition of the Federation of Master Builders despite there being numerous organisations that support the measure. The noble Viscount said that he would write to me giving a list of other organisations that support the Government’s position. I have not had that letter yet; perhaps the Minister could tell me when I will get it, because it would be useful to see who these other organisations are. It is also important to remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, reminded us, that the zero-carbon homes standard was agreed by the coalition Government in the last Parliament.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also mentioned it—we do not want in a few years’ time to be required to undertake expensive retrofit measures when we could have done the work during the initial construction at a fraction of the cost.

The Government’s claims as to the initial costs are just not convincing. At no point during our consideration of this part of the Bill have I felt that the Government made a convincing or compelling case for why this measure should not be supported. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, just to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I will chase my noble friend. I think he might have gone to get the letter, actually.

It is helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has revised the carbon compliance standard in her new amendment, but we still do not know the risks it may pose to the viability of home building in some parts of the country, or the impact it may have on the home building industry, particularly some small builders. We need a clear understanding of what is technically possible, viable and cost effective to make any changes to energy performance standards for new homes. That is why we are introducing a statutory duty on this Government to undertake a full and comprehensive review of energy standards based on cost effectiveness and the impact on housing supply. We will report back to this House on the outcome of the review within the next 12 months.

The other place has given its considerable support to this review based on cost effectiveness, and it is supported by the Home Builders Federation—the main trade body that represents home builders of all sizes. The Housing Minister in the other place also pointed out the following yesterday:

“We said in our manifesto that we will meet our climate change commitments and that we will do so by cutting emissions ‘as cost-effectively as possible’. The electorate voted for that and the review will help to ensure that we can deliver it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 463.]

So before the other place considers any changes to energy performance standards, home builders and the electorate think that we first need to have an understanding of what is cost effective. Is it right that we should go against their views?

Finally, I remind the House that it is not prudent to set requirements such as this in primary legislation. If, in the light of consultation, any slight adjustment to requirements were needed, we would not be able to do so without further primary legislation. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I was surprised that the Government rejected this amendment when it went to the other place. Ensuring that we build homes and have sustainable drainage is a positive thing. When we discussed this matter the other day, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, sought to remove the automatic right of connection to ensure that the drainage system would be considered and resolved early on and not left to the end. It was suggested that the amendment was unnecessary or unworkable. I am not convinced that either is the case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, proposed Motion E. This goes some way in the right direction. It commits the Government to,

“carry out a review concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England”.

That is to be welcomed, but I am aware that a review is a review and it commits the Government to nothing beyond that. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked some pertinent questions about timescales—when the review will come before Parliament and what action will come out of it. When the Minister responds to the debate, it would be useful if she could cover these points.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I emphasise that we are committed to ensuring that developments are safe from flooding and that the delivery of SUDS—if I can call it that—forms part of our policy approach. Both the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked whether the review would be thorough, robust and look at evidence on the ground. The answer to all three is yes.

The Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would include a review of all development, the scope of which would be too broad. The amendment also refers to the non-statutory technical standards, which is for guidance only. I therefore cannot accept the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will accept that, while we join them in supporting the use of SUDS, it would not be appropriate to make changes at this point, until we have the evidence on which to base any changes.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talks about a date of 31 April 2017. There is nothing in the government amendment. Can the Minister give the House any idea of timescale?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution today to consideration of the Commons reasons and amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my declaration of interests and further declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. Generally, it is disappointing that we are back here today following the rejection by the other place yesterday of a number of amendments proposed by your Lordships’ House. There has been some movement in the Government’s position on the taper but they have not gone as far as we would have liked, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, got this one right. Nevertheless, we are pleased that there has been some movement. Recycling a proportion of the discount through a taper if the property is sold is a much better way of delivering this policy and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that.

On Motions B and B1, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, respectively, the latter amendment gives local authorities the ability to demonstrate the case for delivering other forms of low-cost home ownership to the Secretary of State along with their general duty to deliver starter homes. That is all the amendment does: it gives the local authority the ability to demonstrate the case. If that is not done to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction, approval will not be given. I cannot see why the Government want to resist that. Again, it is disappointing that the other place has not accepted Amendment 109 proposed by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, but there has been some movement, which is to be welcomed. Like my noble friend, I will be looking carefully at what emerges from future discussions, and we will press the Government further in that regard.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I welcome the debate on the starter homes amendments and rural issues; I hope it has been productive. I am trying telepathically to understand what the Minister in the other place meant last night by “proportionate” discount. As I understand it, as the discount is a percentage rather than a cash sum, it is proportionate to the total cost rather than fixed, which is probably fairer. That is my understanding of what he meant.

On Amendment 10B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, I understand why it seems attractive to allow local authorities to meet their starter homes requirement with other products. However, in reality, the requirement for starter homes would become something entirely different. This change to the requirement would again undermine the Government’s ability to meet our manifesto commitment to 200,000 starter homes. We have been very clear on why we want a requirement for starter homes. This is a new product, designed to address a specific gap in the market for young, first-time buyers, as we have discussed on many occasions during the passage of the Bill. Starter homes will give young people the chance of full home ownership, allowing them to move onwards and upwards over time. We have a clear manifesto mandate to deliver this product, and that is why we are legislating for starter homes alone.

The starter home requirement will be straightforward and developers will understand it from the outset. It does not remove councils’ ability to deliver other affordable housing and home ownership products alongside starter homes, and we fully expect them to do so. Nor does it remove their local plan policy. The Government believe that shared ownership and other affordable home ownership products have an important role to play as part of a diverse and thriving housing market. They will help those who aspire to home ownership but cannot afford outright discounted purchase.

The spending review has committed £8 billion to deliver a further 400,000 new affordable housing starts. We have published a prospectus that invites housing associations and other providers such as developers to bid for £4.1 billion to deliver 135,000 shared ownership homes and £200 million to deliver 10,000 rent-to-buy homes. However, our legislation focuses on starter homes to ensure that it has the necessary attention to secure delivery.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and I hope that the amendments I have set out mean that there is no need to divide your Lordships’ House. With these reassurances, I ask that the amendment to the Motion be withdrawn.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon and other noble Lords have made a compelling case for contributions to affordable housing from small-scale developments. As my noble friend said, rural communities are not just small-scale versions of urban areas; they are quite different. They have their own strengths and challenges that have to be met. We have to understand that and enable outcomes to be delivered that help rural areas to prosper.

Housing that is affordable is one of the greatest challenges we face. The proportion of homes used only at weekends or as holiday accommodation risks making our villages and small communities unsustainable. Housing has to be available in various tenures for people who want to live and work locally and keep communities alive: for teachers to run the village school; for people to run rural post offices, shops and pubs; for health workers to keep community health facilities open and for farmworkers to sustain the rural economy. Not all such people will be able to afford to buy their own home, so the provision of social housing is a must to keep communities alive. We have heard that only 8% of housing in rural areas is owned by housing associations and local authorities. My noble friend’s amendment would give a power to local authorities to require, where they decide they want to, an affordable housing contribution in cash or in kind, determined by the requirements of the local area. That is an excellent idea. It has localism at its heart and the Government should support it.

The amendment defines what is meant by a “rural area” and the parameters of the policy. I hope the Minister will have some positive words to say, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. However, if my noble friend is not satisfied, I hope she will test the opinion of the House, and I am sure that she will have support on these and other Benches. I hope that that will not be necessary today, that discussions can continue and that we can come back to this matter at Third Reading.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for raising an issue that I think is seen as important on all sides of this House. Her amendment would enable local planning authorities to require affordable housing contributions, in cash or kind, from small-scale developments and from developments in rural areas. I hope I can provide assurances of how we propose to use the power to support housing delivery and the fact that we recognise the issues faced by rural areas in particular.

During debate in Committee I explained that local authorities currently can set affordable housing policies in their local plans and use Section 106 agreements to secure affordable housing delivery and agree financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing contributions.

We all agree on the importance of affordable housing, which is why the Government announced in the spending review investment of £8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable housing starts by 2020-21. However, we know that, on particular types of site, the way in which affordable housing contributions are determined can delay development and affect housing delivery. Clause 143 will enable us to bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. This could include conditions on how planning obligations are sought for affordable housing. These can be varied by the type of site to which they apply.

We know that the details of any restrictions will require careful consideration to deliver benefits in enabling overall housing delivery while taking careful account of the need to deliver affordable housing. Measures implementing this power will be set out in regulations which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so noble Lords will have further opportunity for scrutiny.

It has been made clear in previous debates on this clause and others, including the debates on starter homes and high-value assets, that rural areas face distinct challenges. Concerns have been raised about the impact that the Bill could have on rural areas and we are committed to considering how rural exception sites are given discretion in any compulsory starter home requirement and how we can consider excluding them from high-value asset payments.

The power to make regulations in Clause 143 is a broad one and allows us to take into account the concerns raised. I am happy and willing to continue to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Best, on what these regulations will contain. However, I cannot commit to bringing forward an amendment by Third Reading.

We recently heard from the Communities and Local Government Select Committee about the importance of monitoring the effect of this policy. By bringing forward any restrictions or conditions through regulations we can also ensure that they can be more easily reviewed so that they maximise the benefits for housing delivery more broadly.

I hope my reassurance and recognition of the particular issues faced by rural areas will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 107ZZB in this group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Andrews, would delete Clause 136 from the Bill. The clause is concerned with permission in principle and was debated at some length in Committee in your Lordships’ House. Permission in principle is a major change in how we approve developments. It has, of course, been suggested that the supply of new homes is being held back due to the planning process and the failure to get planning applications approved. That is complete nonsense which has been cited by one or two noble Lords in debate on this issue in recent times.

I tabled a Question to the Government on this issue and received a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, on 4 April. In her reply the noble Baroness confirmed that there were planning permissions for 658,000 homes in England where work was either not started or not completed. That is a large number of approvals. As a local councillor I have approved some of those applications over the last two years. In the area where I live I regularly note sites for which I have been party to approving an application for housing but nothing has happened. All that has happened on one site is that, a few days after the committee gave permission for housing, a “for sale” board went up saying, “for sale with full permission for housing and two shops”. That is all that has happened since we gave permission well over a year ago.

That is not the local planning authority dragging its feet or attempting to stifle development; no, there are other factors at play here which this clause does nothing about. It is about the value of land and the price it is rising at. It can also be about the ability to raise finance to undertake a development. It is not about a planning authority dragging its feet. We very much support building new homes, although we may seek to do it in a different way. We want to see brownfield sites brought back into use for housing and other ancillary and alternatives uses, but we have concerns about what will be built, in terms of design, space, energy efficiency and affordability. We want to see a range of tenures and the building of viable, long-term communities.

Government Amendment 106A confers additional powers on the Secretary of State. I draw the attention of the House to the 28th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—in particular, the section concerning Amendment 106A which starts at the bottom of page 1 and carries on to page 2. The report concludes:

“Inadequate and incomplete provisions of proposed primary legislation cannot be excused on the basis that consultation has not taken place or that the Government wish to retain ‘flexibility to set out differing timeframes as they apply in different contexts’. The policy should have been finalised following appropriate consultation before, not after, the Bill was introduced.

We therefore consider that the delegation of power in the proposed new Section 59A(8) inserted by amendment 106A is inappropriate, and that the duration of permission in principle should instead be specified on the face of the Bill. An alternative approach, although we think that this is a less satisfactory option, would be to specify the maximum duration on the face of the Bill, coupled with an affirmative procedure power to provide for a shorter period”.

That is damning criticism by the committee and the Government should take heed of it.

To help matters along, I make the following offer to the Government. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will withdraw the amendment today with a view to reflecting on the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and bringing an amendment back at Third Reading that takes those concerns on board, then in the same spirit we will not test the opinion of the House on our Amendment 107 in the next group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Instead, we will wait to see whether we can get an amendment that addresses the concerns raised in the report. It is for the Minister to decide what to do and I hope the noble Baroness will take up this offer made in the spirit of wanting to get this right.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Let me clarify that the Government do want to get this right. We do not want PIP to be a disincentive to building homes or create risk in the system. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says about the comments of the DPRRC. I am very willing not to move Amendment 106A for the time being, and to use the next few days to perhaps bring something back at Third Reading.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Andrews has showed the House her expertise in these matters and I fully support her amendment. I do not have any more to say than that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, not only for eloquently outlining her amendment but for how she has contributed to this part of the Bill thus far. She outlined why she considers that this is an important opportunity to place a high-level obligation in the Bill to ensure that the brownfield register contributes to sustainable places. I fully agree that local authority decisions should consider sustainable development and good design but I hope I can outline why the amendment is not needed.

This clause will already require local planning authorities to have regard to the NPPF when, for example, making decisions about sites to include in local registers. As we discussed in Committee, the framework makes clear that sustainable development should be at the heart of both plan-making and decision-taking. I emphasise that placing a site on a register is not a permission to build—but I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that. The consideration of detailed issues, such as design, will not be feasible at the point that sites are entered on to the brownfield registers. That will come later. Applicants will be responsible for providing detailed information when they submit their applications for technical details consent. This will ensure that design is also considered before consent is granted in the same way as it would be for a planning application.

The noble Baroness raised the applicability of sustainable development objectives and the NPPF to new town development corporations. As she will be aware, we announced in the Budget our intention to legislate to better support the delivery of new locally led garden towns and villages. We want to ensure that they exemplify high design and sustainability standards. It is absolutely our intention that when we legislate we will ensure that sustainable development objectives and the outcomes set out in the NPPF apply with no less force to new town development corporations than they do to local planning authorities in general.

I also point out that it is the applicant and not local authorities who should bear the cost of providing detailed information in support of their application. Placing a stronger emphasis in the Bill could result in unnecessary burdens being transferred to local authorities. I emphasise that our proposals for the brownfield register or permission in principle do not change the protections in the NPPF in respect of sustainability or design.

I hope that I have been able to articulate our position and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, although there has been the ability for fees to go up in line with inflation, there is a general acceptance of the anecdotal evidence from local planning authorities that their costs are not being met, but we have to marry that up with performance and efficiency.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know that we are going to come back to this next week but, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that, when we have all these reviews, she does not envisage a situation where we end up with the local authority being able to charge one set of fees for a planning application, while a lot more could be paid to another provider who could also do it but at a more expensive cost? I think that it would be totally wrong to allow there to be two levels of fees—you could have the council charging a fee but allow some other provider to do the same job for a larger fee.

[Lord Shipley]

Before the noble Lord sits down—that is actually the subject of the amendment that I shall be moving next Monday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for the manner in which he has engaged with me and Members of your Lordships’ House in addressing not just the basement development issue, but the associated problems and the misery of people’s lives being disrupted by such developments. He has certainly enlightened me as to some of the problems in London, in particular. The Government are very aware of them now, if they were not previously.

I take this opportunity to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that in the light of the concerns he has raised on this and many previous occasions, we will commit to carrying out a review of the planning law and regulations relating to basement developments. The noble Lord promised me that I would be splashed all over the Evening Standard for this, so I await his side of the deal—that is a metaphor.

We will publish a call for evidence for the review by the summer this year, and we hope we will receive responses from a range of authorities and stakeholders and, of course, from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, so we can take on his views and expertise.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has been doggedly pursuing this issue for some time now. He produced a Private Member’s Bill and pursued this matter here, and we have a very good conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of the argument. My noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about safeguarding some of the economic well-being of their areas. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy demonstrated that this has been deeply beneficial to areas such as mine in Trafford, revitalising our local high streets and bringing office buildings back into use where once they stood empty. My noble friend Lady Scott talked about inappropriate use of permitted development rights for things such as building houses in industrial estates. As my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, we have Article 4 to implement in places where it is simply not appropriate to move from office to residential use.

As I outlined in Committee, the office to residential PDR is making a very important contribution to delivering the 1 million homes that we want by 2021, while making the best use of brownfield sites and reducing the pressure to build on greenfield land. Take-up of the temporary permitted development right has been very high, with more than 6,500 applications since April 2014, demonstrating the demand for such conversions. This has led to over 5,300 permissions for office to residential conversions.

Our data show that in 2014-15 we saw a 65% increase in the number of new homes created through change of use, and the office to residential permitted development right will have helped to deliver around 8,000 new homes. Data from the sector also indicate that the temporary right has delivered much-needed new homes to buy or rent, including in London and the south-east, where we continue to face a housing shortage. The British Council for Offices has estimated that, nationally, 7,600 dwellings have been delivered since May 2013. Evidence to date shows that the light-touch planning process has resulted in new homes being brought forward. The British Council for Offices notes that some of the developments would be unlikely to have come forward via a planning application and are therefore additional to the number of homes that would otherwise have been delivered.

I will now address the new clause proposed in my noble friend Lord True’s Amendment 116A, and speak first to subsection (c). I understand that the aim behind it is to compensate business tenants where property owners exercise their permitted development rights to change use from office to residential. However, this is not a planning issue.

The amendment is unnecessary as there are already adequate protections for business tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under the general law, business tenants have security of tenure until their lease expires. On expiration, the tenant has important rights under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to have a new lease at the market rent, unless he has explicitly opted out of these rights at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 30 of the Act specifies certain circumstances in which the tenant is not entitled to a new tenancy. These include where the landlord is able to demonstrate an intention to undertake substantial works at the premises, which could be where approval is secured under the permitted development right. Under these circumstances, the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord under Section 37 of the Act. The compensation is set at the rate of one times the rateable value of the premises, or twice the rateable value if the same business has been in occupation for more than 14 years.

I now turn to subsections (a) and (b). We consider that the introduction of the PDR for change of use from office to residential has resulted in new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning permission. We consider that imposing such additional requirements on developers is likely to undermine the contribution the right makes to the delivery of new homes which are so badly needed.

In relation to subsection (a) of the proposed new clause, local authorities are already able to charge a fee for prior approval applications for change of use. The fee is set at a level which reflects the light-touch approach for processing these applications, as only certain specific issues require approval. I hope that this provides reassurance that appropriate safeguards are already in place and I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

On Amendment 116B, as I agreed in Committee, I have since met my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to discuss their concerns about the impact of the office-to-residential right. I have also listened carefully to the debates both in Committee and on Report on this issue and recognise the concerns expressed by my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Kerslake, about the loss of office space in some areas and the impact that it can have on local businesses.

I appreciate the strength of feeling in certain areas on this matter, but I cannot accept the amendment that would introduce this new clause into the Bill. The issues raised relate to specific areas, as I have already outlined. The amendment would apply nationally and would create uncertainty within the market. It would undermine the important role that the right plays in the supply of new homes. It would also have a negative effect on the growth of the development industry. The amendment is also unnecessary, as appropriate protections are already in place to meet local conditions.

The office market continues to evolve to meet the business community’s needs and respond to the right. Where it is necessary to protect the economic well-being of a specific area, local authorities can bring forward an Article 4 direction to remove the right and allow for consideration of a planning application. That is a fair and proportionate approach. But I recognise that my noble friend Lord True also has concerns about Article 4 directions. However, the process is straightforward and provides robust safeguards by allowing for local consultation on the scope of the direction before it comes into force.

I hope that this reassures noble Lords that while we understand their concerns about the impact of the right in specific parts of the country, there are appropriate existing safeguards. But while the Government’s position on this issue will not change and while I urge my noble friend not to press his amendment, I will undertake if he wishes to have further discussions on this matter. As always, I am very happy to meet him.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On Amendment 116A, we see these developments all around here in Westminster, with offices now being converted into very expensive homes. Why would it not be right for a planning authority to get somewhere near its full costs on this?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am sorry. Could the noble Lord repeat that?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On Amendment 116A(a), we can see all around here many developments where offices have been converted into very expensive properties. Why would it not be reasonable for a local authority—in this case, Westminster—to cover a larger proportion of its costs in fees, considering what these properties are now selling for very close to this Palace?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that it is because it is not a planning consideration, so the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord rather than the local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their comments and contributions. To respond to the noble Lord, I can confirm absolutely, for the avoidance of doubt, that planning authorities will not be able to charge one fee and private providers another. We do not intend to create two tiers within the planning system—it would be most undemocratic and unfair, generally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the £450 million disparity that the LGA found between costs and fees. I need to make the point that there will be differences between the efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities in delivering planning services. Some show that performance can be improved and costs reduced, and more should follow their lead. Authorities have done a phenomenal job in sharing services for many of their functions but have not moved quickly enough in doing so for planning services. I said that to the noble Baroness either earlier today or on Monday—the days have merged into one.

Amendment 116BA, as I said on a previous amendment, allows local authorities to go beyond cost recovery. We are absolutely clear that these services and other discretionary services should not exceed the cost of providing the service. I have been through the argument previously that what cost recovery means in practice, in terms of fee levels, varies from local authority to local authority. We want a highly efficient service, and there are real challenges up-front in doing this for some local authorities, but we want better-performing planning departments for better performance in terms of planning outcomes. I talked earlier about our proposals for tackling resource pressures in planning departments. I hope that noble Lords will not mind that I do not go through these again, and that with those words the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this short debate. My noble friend Lady Andrews highlighted the cuts that have fallen on local authority planning departments in recent years. I was pleased that the Minister was able to give us some reassurance on the issues. I am sure we will be discussing again on Monday the fees that can be charged by a local planning authority and those that can be charged by a private provider. That will be very welcome news for local government.

I thought I had written my amendment in such a way that it would not allow people to charge more than the costs involved, so clearly I am no better than the noble Lord, Lord Porter, at writing these amendments. Maybe we need to get together and we will get one right at some point. I certainly do not see my amendment as doing what the Minister says it does, so I am a bit disappointed in her response. I know it is late but I am going to test the opinion of the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister says “earners”, but, of course, these incomes refer to households—the earners earn much less than that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right; it does represent households. But he asked how the figures were derived and that is how I understand they were derived.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised a number of questions about the affirmative regulations that we will bring forward. Introducing a taper will reduce the money coming in. I have just had a note saying that the regulations we will bring forward will provide more detail in due course. The noble Baroness also asked, what is the updated estimate of savings from the policy in light of the taper? Introducing a taper will reduce the money coming in by about half compared to what was set out in the Budget. That is what I can say at this stage.

Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Kerslake, seeks to allow a local authority discretion to implement the policy where the costs of administering the policy are likely to be greater than the extra rental income raised. It also seeks to allow local authorities to retain the additional revenue raised from increased rental income. I am sympathetic to one half of this amendment and I can give a commitment that we are thinking through the impact of the policy in certain authority areas. I accept that there may be some areas where social rents and market rents are so close that it may not make sense for an authority to operate the policy. We will consider that evidence carefully and consider how to approach this in the regulations. We will not be allowing local authorities to retain any money raised, however. The money has been identified as a contribution to reducing the national deficit and, on that basis, it must come back to government. I reinforce our commitment to allow local authorities to retain reasonable administrative costs.

Government amendment 133 provides for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which I am sure will be supported. I do not think that I need to say much more about this. I have given a commitment that the Government are in listening mode and want to take on board the views of noble Lords across a number of areas of detail. The affirmative regulations give us the chance to do this and I welcome the opportunity.

I hope that I have provided some reassurance and highlighted areas where we are thinking carefully about the way forward. Although we cannot accept a voluntary approach, we will work with noble Lords to consider the impact in some local authority areas. On that basis, I commend the government amendment and hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the noble Baroness clarify one thing? I may be getting confused but I believe that the figures of £30,000 and £40,000 were the earnings figures that have now been applied to households. That seems a very odd and unfair government policy—taking an earnings figure and applying it across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very relevant question. May I write to him?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for that response. However, it highlights the fact that we are still not clear about some issues, even now we are on Report. That has been one of the problems with the Bill from the start. That is not the noble Baroness’s fault, but we are still not clear about some things even on the third day on Report. That is the fault of the department and the way it has handled the whole process.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Hollis that the Government appear to be obsessed with council tenants’ incomes. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, households with these income levels could in no way be described as high-earning. This proposal is just a tax on working council tenants on modest wages. That is very regrettable. I have heard nothing from the noble Baroness today or in Committee to convince me otherwise, although she has tried her best. I find this all very disappointing.

I still do not understand why the noble Baroness has on previous occasions—although she did not do so today—referred to a figure of £50,000 in London but seeks to impose this tax on working council tenants earning £40,000. I think the real reason, as we all know, is that the department has done its figures and realised that it needs to start levying this tax on earnings of £30,000 or £40,000 to get the maximum income. That is what this is all about; it is purely a tax.

I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said. It was a pleasure to serve with him on the Electoral Commission, on which we both served for many years. I would have hoped that, even if the noble Baroness did not listen to my contribution or those of other noble Lords, she would have listened to that of the noble Lord, Lord Horam. However, clearly she has not done so today. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Planning: Trees

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, councils expend an awful lot of time and effort in maintaining their highway trees, which I think is what the noble Lord was referring to, and it is important that they continue to do so, particularly where some of those trees that were planted perhaps 70 or 80 years ago have grown far too big for the environment in which they sit.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that we have all twigged why the noble Lord asked his Question: he is standing for election to the council in Sheffield next month. He is of course hoping that people will not see the wood for the trees and realise that he was leader of the council. Does the Minister agree with me that matters relating to that election should not be brought into the Chamber?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord. It is also worth noting that today is the first day of local election purdah.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it is good that we all agree that we should build more homes and have more housing. We often fire at each other the records of previous Governments as regards what Governments are or are not doing, who built the most houses when, and what type of houses were built. I am sure that we will carry on doing that in future debates, but it is good that we all agree that we need to build more houses.

As I have told the House before, I grew up on a council estate in Southwark in south London. I have always been very grateful to the council that gave us a house that was clean, warm, safe and dry. Our family was very happy there and we kids were able to do our homework and not do too badly in the world—I hope. However, I have some concerns when we talk about affordable housing. I want to see more social housing built, such as council housing and housing association housing. I worry sometimes that we get into debates about affordable housing when homes at 80% of the market rate in some parts of London do not seem very affordable to me. That is a worry I have and I will come back to it. I also think that communities, whether in rural areas, small towns or villages or big cities, need homes for people on modest incomes, low incomes or high incomes to live side by side to make sure that our communities work. Whatever side of the House we are on, we should ensure that we work to do that.

Some of the government amendments in this group seek to replace the word “high” with “higher”. I am sure the noble Baroness knows that this concept initially caused alarm and that people wondered what was going on. It will be no great surprise to her to hear that some people were a bit suspicious about what the Government were up to and why they wanted to insert the word “higher”. So her clarification is very welcome and I thank her very much for it.

Her general comments were also very helpful and useful. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, outlined, no one knows better than he and his colleagues in South Holland the needs of South Holland—as is the case with my noble friend Lord Beecham in Newcastle, and other noble Lords in relation to their areas. It is important that we ensure that local councils, councillors and council leaders are fully involved in whatever measures we bring forward as they are aware of the needs of their area. It will be helpful to do that at Third Reading. It would also be helpful if the noble Baroness would clarify again what she intends to bring back at Third Reading—but generally I very much welcome her comments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for explaining why he tabled Amendment 61A. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for tabling Amendment 56. While I always respect the views of former Ministers in my department, I will first address the concerns of noble Lords opposite as they are not seeking to remove a manifesto commitment from the Bill.

I turn first to Amendment 56. The changes proposed through this amendment would transfer the onus of defining “high” or “higher” value from the Government on to local authorities. This would lead to local authorities coming up with different methodologies, which would undermine fairness, consistency and transparency. Instead, by using the local authority data that we have collected to set the threshold, we can ensure that a consistent methodology is used to apply the definition across all local authorities. Rather than rushing to set a threshold for higher value, we need to ensure that we fully analyse the 16 million pieces of data that local authorities have provided, so that we set a definition that is fair and equitable. As I have said, the definition will be set out in regulations which will be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are concerned with the payments to the Secretary of State and the deductions from those payments of sums of money to build replacement properties on a one-for-one basis. I am supportive of both the amendments in this group. As I said in Committee, the clauses concerning the high-value levy and the sale of high-value council properties are a very damaging mechanism to deliver government policy. They make local councils foot the bill and risk having a devastating effect on council housing stocks. Both these amendments seek to put in the Bill that the payments to government must be made after the deduction of the costs of replacement on a one-for-one basis.

Amendment 64A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, signed up, would add a further clause giving the local authority the ability to set out to government what specific types of local housing are needed in their area. Again, this seems to be within the principle of localism and should not really cause the Government any problems at all. I understand we will hear from the Minister that they understand the issue and are sympathetic to the points raised by the amendments. I am very pleased to hear that: it is very positive news and very welcome. I will not say much more than that, but I am delighted that the Minister and other colleagues have listened. Until we see the text of the amendment concerned, we of course reserve our position, and may bring our amendment back at Third Reading, but from what I have heard I am very pleased and I thank her very much.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who have all made powerful arguments about the importance of delivering new homes and meeting the needs of local communities, which is so important.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that when government makes agreements with local authorities outside London about building new homes, we should ensure that at least one new affordable home is provided for each old dwelling that is sold. That has always been our intention, but today I am very happy to work to make that intention clear in the Bill. As I said earlier, I would like to consider further how we can best reflect that in the Bill, and I look forward to working with the noble Lord and others on it. The noble Lord makes powerful arguments about the different needs of different areas. Many noble Lords in the House—certainly many of those in the Chamber today—have, at some point or other, represented very different areas with very different needs. Reflecting this diversity and respecting the views of local people and local leaders is at the heart of the Government’s drive for localism, as several noble Lords have pointed out. I totally agree that in our dialogue with local communities, local authorities should be empowered to make the case for the right balance of housing in their area, and that there should be a strong expectation that the Government will listen. That is absolutely our intention; indeed, it reflects our broader approach.

The Bill enables dialogue through the provisions of Clause 72, which enables agreements to be made about the delivery of replacement homes. As I said, I am very happy to work with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to give local authorities with particular housing needs in their areas the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements with the Government about the delivery of different types of new homes in their areas.

With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy, will agree not to press their amendments. I hope that this commitment will also enable the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, not to press her amendment, as we bring forward a proposal that ensures the delivery of housing in a way that specifies the cost of replacement, as a deduction to payments would not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope the noble Lord will understand that I do not have telepathy regarding what might happen in various spending reviews et cetera, but as far as I know such data collection exercises will continue. If that is not the case, I will let the House know.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as this is the last amendment we will discuss today, I put on record my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Trafford and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the courteous way in which they have responded to questions and comments from Members in all parts of the House. They have been helpful, informative and willing to listen. I know that other noble Lords appreciate that, too.

Having said that, I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken up my very good offer to enable the Government to arm themselves with more information to convince us all what a great policy they are putting forward here. I picked a period of three years because, as I said, barring any unknown factors the Government will still be in office then to deliver their review. I am disappointed that they do not want to take up that offer, and therefore want to test the opinion of the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, stands up, that is on the list for the end of the week, definitely.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I just wanted to thank the noble Baroness for both her announcements; they are very helpful. On the first one, she talked about noble Lords receiving various policy position papers. Would it be possible, when she does that, to sketch out when she thinks—we will not hold her to this, but just some idea of when—we will get the various regulations? That would be very helpful.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We will endeavour to the best of our abilities, if we know when those dates will be, to bring them to noble Lords. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I do not want to pre-empt any discussions that the group will have; I go into it with an open and clear mind. I am sure that we will glean information useful not just for the Bill but for housing policy generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we will see how the mechanism works when it comes out, but I think I have said a couple of times in your Lordships’ House that we do not want to adversely and disproportionately affect one area compared with another, so the calculations will be made by area and by type of property according to the number of bedrooms. Noble Lords will have ample opportunity to scrutinise this through the regulations, and we may have more detail through the Bill as time goes on.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee how often these payments will be made? Will it be monthly, half-yearly or yearly? If an account overpaid an amount of money, when would that be put right? If a payment was due to be made in April and it was to be paid again the following April, the timing might be an issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the noble Lord’s point. A local authority may be disadvantaged for quite a period of time if the payments were not made very often. I shall take that point away and consider it.

Clause 75 seeks to amend Section 34(4A) and Section 43(4A) of the Housing Act 1985 to add to the list of matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard when considering whether to give consent to a local authority wishing to dispose of housing. These amendments will mean that if a disposal of housing by the local authority to another person or body could result in a reduced payment to the Secretary of State under Clause 67, the Secretary of State may choose to take this into account, among other factors, when deciding whether to give consent to the disposal. Making this change will ensure that there is important clarity on the issues that the Secretary of State may choose to take into account when organisations are considering such transfers and that he or she can consider if disposal of housing by the local authority to another person or body could result in a reduced payment.

Clause 76 is a technical amendment to Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003, existing legislation which concerns the pooling of capital housing receipts. It replaces the existing power in Section 11(5) which enables the Secretary of State to set off payments owed to a local authority under that section against any payments the Secretary of State is liable to make to the local authority, with a more limited power which mirrors the provision in Clause 68 of this chapter. Like Clause 73, this aims to simplify accounting arrangements by reducing the total number of payments made between the Secretary of State and a local authority.

Clause 77 deals with the interpretation of certain terms used in this chapter, the great majority of which are self-explanatory. However, I would like to mention one term in particular. Housing “becomes vacant” for the purposes of this chapter,

“when a tenancy granted by the authority comes to an end and is not renewed expressly or by operation of law”.

We have discussed this previously. There may be some circumstances where a high-value home would become vacant under this definition but we would not want it to be counted in the vacancy rate set out in the determination. The power in subsection (2) will enable such exclusions to be made. Providing this power through regulations will provide flexibility to ensure that if circumstances change over time, or if a need for further exclusions is identified in the future, this can be addressed more quickly.

The department is engaging widely with local authorities and other stakeholders and no decisions have been made yet on the circumstances in which housing that becomes vacant may be excluded from the chapter under subsection (2).

Turning now to the specific amendments, Amendment 69A seeks to end the duty for local authorities to consider selling high-value housing as it becomes vacant three years after the Act is passed. Noble Lords have provided many considered lines of debate today but I do not believe the amendments would have the effect they envisage or be beneficial to local authorities or to people in need of new homes. While they would prevent the duty to consider selling from applying for six months following a vacancy arising and would end the duty after three years, the requirement for payments to the Secretary of State would not be changed. The Secretary of State would still be able to make determinations, which would be based on the sale of high-value housing that is expected to become vacant, but these amendments would mean that local authorities would no longer have to consider selling their vacant housing to make the payments.

This moves away from the intentions outlined in the Government’s manifesto. The legislation is framed to provide local authorities with some flexibility on what housing to sell and how to make payments to the Secretary of State. The duty is an important part of this to ensure the payments are focused on high-value housing, both in the calculation by government and the way they are met by local authorities. These amendments would move away from the aims of the policy. Six months is a very long time for a property to sit vacant before the duty to consider selling arises, particularly given the need for housing across the country. On this basis, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment. When the question is asked, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their opposition and allow the clauses to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his information. As I have just said, I will bring forward as much as possible, but I have also undertaken to meet noble Lords to discuss matters for regulations as we go forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister repeat for the Committee what the Government’s problem is with Amendment 69A? It would not stop them doing anything. It is just a sunset clause and would provide them with the ability, if they proceed with the policy and find an issue with it, to stop it. If they wanted to carry on, they would bring forward the affirmative regulations to do so. I do not see what the major problem is. If the Minister could repeat her reasons, it would be very helpful.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Baroness answers my noble friend, perhaps I may add to his question—it is the same point but viewed from a slightly different angle. If it turns out that the scheme is not working, on the face of it that would require the Government to bring in primary legislation to change the duty. What the amendment offers is a way of dealing with matters, if required, by secondary legislation, where that difficulty is much less—in fact, we complain about it being less much of the time. In this case, it would surely be a better way of dealing with it than imposing a duty to come back with primary legislation if the scheme proved not to be working properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I have said what I can say on this matter. I recall legislation that has gone through this House with a sunset clause for a very specific purpose.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate: the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Campbell-Savours, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. I was not particularly convinced by the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and was struck by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on the wide powers that this part of the Bill grants to the Secretary of State. I am obviously disappointed that the Government have not taken up my offer of a sunset clause. I thank the noble Baroness for undertaking to take away the issue I raised about when payments would be made.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I now have an answer for the noble Lord: it is quarterly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness. That is interesting and I will reflect on it.

As I said, I will reflect on the points that have been made in the debate. We may bring this issue back—or some variation of it—on Report after Easter. With that, I beg to withdraw my opposition to Clause 73 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, landlords collect the information and they send it to HMRC. It is not a question of HMRC collecting any new information; HMRC will not be doing that. Perhaps we should park the HMRC issue because we will come on to it in a later group.

I turn to Amendment 70D tabled by among others the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Beecham. This would give local authorities a choice about how to set rents for high income social tenants. Taken together with previous amendments that seek to make the policy voluntary, this would mean that a number of different approaches would be taken up and down the country. As I have said, that is not our preferred route as we want a consistent approach for all local authority tenants. This is best achieved by the introduction of a taper, which I hope I have covered thoroughly already. Regulations under this clause will be used to confirm the taper.

Housing associations will be free to decide on the most appropriate level of rent, although we hope that the majority will copy the approach of the taper that will apply to local authority tenants. The housing associations we have spoken to have suggested that this will be the most likely scenario.

Amendment 70E would enable local authorities to decide how rents should be set, presumably after they had taken the decision on whether to adopt a policy. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, back to the previous discussions and the commitments I have given on rents by way of a taper. This will apply to all local authority tenants and will link rent rises to increases in household income.

Amendment 75C, tabled by among others the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, would change the status of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Local authorities will be very clear that if they are to be required to operate the policy, they need guidance about the steps they should take. The purpose of guidance will not be to prescribe exactly the processes and technical support needed to operate the policy within an authority but it may set out, for example, how income has been defined under the policy and the types of evidence that may be acceptable to help to verify declarations made by tenants. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested in any guidance that we intend to issue, and I will certainly share it when it becomes available.

Amendment 79C is concerned with the approach for non-declaration of rents by social households. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for the amendment and I will turn to the reasons for the power in a separate part of the debate. This amendment seeks to make the power voluntary for local authorities, but we believe that where action is needed for tenants who do not declare, the approach should apply consistently across the country. We are considering how this power could also be used by housing associations in discussion with them, and I am clear that there should be a fair and consistent use of the approach for non-declaration.

Finally, Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would mean that payments made to the Government under the policy could not be based on an estimate of the rental income increase or on a formula approach based on a set of assumptions. We have not taken a decision on the approach as further engagement with local authorities is necessary. I think that also answers the point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. However, there needs to be flexibility in the power to ensure that the most appropriate approach can be taken. I will carefully consider both the benefits and the drawbacks to an approach based on actual receipts and one based on estimates. Engagement with local authorities will continue over the next month, and the issue of how to return money will be at the top of the agenda. We will listen carefully to the arguments before making a decision.

As I have said, I recognise why there is a desire for local authorities to operate this policy voluntarily, but I hope I have done enough to persuade noble Lords why that would not be the best way forward. The Government have a clearly stated policy that high income social tenants should pay a fairer level of rent. On that basis, it is only fair that it should apply consistently across local authority tenants. I have outlined why we cannot do the same for housing associations, but that we are working closely with them to ensure they take up the policy. Alongside this, I have provided confirmation of our commitment to a taper that will meet a reasonable level of the costs of operating the scheme for local authorities. On that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think I heard the noble Baroness correctly, but I might be wrong, when she said earlier that council tenants receive a taxpayer-funded subsidy. If that is the case, will she say a bit more about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I talked about council tenants on higher incomes benefiting from a taxpayer subsidy when many people in the private rented sector who are on lower incomes would not be able to avail themselves of such a subsidy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments largely looks at conditions of exemption to the pay-to-stay provisions proposed by the Government. All the amendments in the group bear the names of either myself or my noble friend Lord Beecham, with the exception of Amendment 82A put down by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham. Their amendment identifies an omission and seeks to correct it. It is welcome but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the Government seemed to confirm that it is not necessary.

Amendment 70 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Lister. It seeks to put in the Bill a number of exemptions to which any regulation made by the Secretary of State under Clause 78 would not apply. My noble friend Lady Lister moved the amendment, which is at this stage only a probing one that seeks to highlight a number of problems with the across-the-board application of these regulations, making people pay to stay in their council property.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, may shortly tell your Lordships’ House that none of these exemptions are necessary. Maybe when we hear the Government’s response, we on these Benches will come to the conclusion that some of them are not. However, senior citizens who have worked all their lives, people with registered disabilities, or households with people in receipt of care or where a member of the household is a carer for another person living there are such exemptions: the Government should seek to protect such people from this unfair policy that will make life difficult for people on quite modest incomes.

Could the noble Baroness respond to the comments made by my noble friend, apparently attributed to Marcus Jones MP in the Bill Committee in the other place? That would be very helpful. If not, could she write to us about that? It would also be helpful if she provided more information about the work the department is doing in this respect.

I recently saw a job advertisement, I think in the Evening Standard, from a London borough recruiting parking enforcement officers. The pay was about £21,000 or £22,000 a year. I thought, “Two parking enforcement officers living in the same property in London would be deemed high-income social tenants”. That is ridiculous. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who said that this policy evolved under the coalition and today, under the Conservative Government, has been pitched at a much lower level to catch a lot more people, many of whom can in no way be regarded as high-income earners. Couples earning more than £30,000 outside London are not high-income earners in any respect. If would be helpful if the noble Baroness explained how this policy has evolved since last year’s election.

Amendment 70B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake and Lord Low of Dalston, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to make these regulations effective only for new tenancies granted after April next year, again as a mechanism not to penalise those presently holding a tenancy.

Amendment 70C seeks to afford some protection for a tenant following a mutual exchange or transfer. I signed up to it, along with the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Low of Dalston. It raises a particular issue regarding mutual transfers and could even encourage people to undertake such a transfer, perhaps releasing a larger property to a family. It may not be quite right but I hope the noble Baroness can see the problems that will be created and the issues that regulations will have to tackle to avoid some real injustices coming out of this ill-thought-out policy.

Amendment 74, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to provide some protection for affected tenants by building in a process of external valuation of high-income rents. Even with the much talked about taper the Government have said they will introduce, some external valuation of the rent must be of benefit to tenants and would help to bring some element of fairness to this most unpopular policy.

Amendment 75, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to bring in the higher rents over a period of time: first, a notice period of one year before the new rents become payable; then some transitional protection as the tenant moves to the higher rent. This, in effect, is the taper the Government talked about and on which we will need to see much more information.

Amendment 75B seeks to pilot these proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, referred to them, in a number of areas before rolling them out across all local authorities. Of course, this was used in respect of the new requirements in the Immigration Bill for landlords to check tenants’ documents to satisfy them that they are able lawfully to rent a property. I know the noble Lord, Lord Best, was involved in the evaluation process in that respect. He spoke about how well the pilots had gone. It would be beneficial for the Government to adopt a similar pilot approach here.

Amendment 76 is similar in its intention to Amendment 70B. This is an interesting group of amendments, raising real, practical difficulties. As with previous groups, I may have some further questions for the noble Baroness as she responds to the debate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this second group of amendments is concerned mainly with exemptions from the policy and seeks to put a substantial amount of detail into the Bill about who the policy should apply to. Of course, it is important that where there is a strong justification for an exemption, we consider it carefully. We are doing just that, and putting the detail in the Bill would prevent us thinking through the pros and cons of potential exemptions carefully. We need some flexibility to conclude our work and put detail in regulations.

I will start with Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It specifies a wide range of groups that the policy should not apply to. As I have explained, we do not want to put this detail in the Bill but I will outline my position on each of these groups. First, while I do not immediately see why someone on a zero-hour or seasonal contract whose household income is above £30,000 should be exempted, I recognise entirely that it will be important to build in some flexibility for households where income fluctuates, as I mentioned earlier. I will return to that issue later.

I am also not attracted to an exemption for people over 65. Income from pensions can be considerable and it would not be right to exempt a group of people who are mainly retired but where the annual income is greater than that of people in work. That strikes me as quite unfair. Having said that, we are of course giving careful thought to the issues of different pension incomes, including the treatment of Armed Forces pensions.

I am very sympathetic to the suggestion that we should consider how to protect those with a registered disability or who have significant caring responsibilities. However, we must recognise that even in these scenarios the household income may, in certain circumstances, be high. It would not be right on that basis simply to provide an exemption for whole groups. A better approach may be to design the policy to ensure that income from certain state benefits is not included in the eventual definition of income.

I will turn to the definition of income more generally in a later grouping but it is worth highlighting now that the disability living allowance is not a taxable benefit. It is unlikely that we would include income from this in the final definition of income. Carer’s allowance is a taxable benefit but this does not automatically mean we must include such income in our eventual definition. We will give this careful thought, and I welcome the views of noble Lords on it. The noble Baroness also mentioned the impact on certain protected groups. The data from the Family Resources Survey have been analysed to consider the impact on different household types. This is set out in the—now infamous—impact assessment.

I hope this section of the debate has persuaded the Committee that we are giving the issue of exemptions careful thought. I am happy to meet noble Lords privately on this issue, as I recognise how important it is.

Amendments 70B and 76, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Best, Lord Kennedy, Lord Stoneham, and Lord Beecham, seek to restrict the policy to new tenants only. In most circumstances, new tenancies of social properties should be given to those in most housing need, where they are below the income thresholds that we have set. Those in the greatest need of social housing are therefore more likely to be new tenants with an income under the proposed thresholds. It is existing tenants who are more likely to be on higher incomes, and the policy should apply to those currently living in social housing.

I have already outlined the Government’s significant home ownership offer to existing tenants, particularly those on higher incomes, and I would encourage all tenants to look at the opportunities that are available, but it would not be right to exclude existing tenants from the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will repeat my statement. Rent setting is usually done around three months before a new rent year. Providing for a notice period of a year before the new rent comes in would mean that the rental amount would not be consistent with changes in household income over the notice period. However, I will return to rent reviews shortly.

Amendment 75B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lords Kerslake, Lord Beecham and Lord Stoneham, seeks to pilot the policy before full implementation. I recognise that pilots have some benefits in certain circumstances, but it would not be workable here as it would be unfair on tenants in those areas. The policy must apply nationally from April 2017. Although we will not be piloting the policy, I recognise that we need a strong approach to implementation. Local authorities have told us that they need time to put in place the arrangements for implementing the policy. That is a fair request. My department is pushing forward with engagement, and the next few months will be critical. We intend to issue guidance to ensure that authorities are ready to operate the policy, engage with tenants, and set correct rents from April 2017.

I will also take this opportunity to update the Committee on engagement with tenants. We need to make sure that they have the best source of information and advice. Our engagement strategy includes a plan to talk to tenant representative groups and Citizens Advice. For example, it will be important for them fully to understand the commitment I have given to bring forward a taper to ensure that rent rises are affordable.

Finally, Amendment 82A seeks an exemption for rent-to-buy schemes. I can confirm to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young, who tabled the amendment, as well as to the rest of the Committee, that the policy will not apply to tenants in a rent-to-buy or shared ownership property. I have already reinforced the point that the home ownership offer to tenants, particularly those on higher incomes, is very important. I would rather see those households taking up the offer of home ownership than facing higher rents under the policy for high income social tenants. I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Many of the amendments in this group are probing ones and these matters would be better left to regulations. However, we come back to the problem: we have not got any regulations so scrutiny is extremely difficult. That leaves us having to put down amendments on these issues to try to drag out the Government’s thinking. At the end of the day, the amendments are on the Order Paper today only because the Government have sought to push the Bill through at such a pace and not wait for the regulations to be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Perhaps I might make one final comment—it will be my last on this group. Will the Minister agree to reflect on some of the comments made in this debate and the previous debate, particularly the comments of my noble friend Lady Hollis? In the previous debate we were talking about income levels and rent levels changing almost weekly or monthly, but here the Government want a consistent level. For me, the two debates highlight some inconsistency and we need to look at that. Again, we do not want to get ourselves into difficulties in the future.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that I said that higher-income tenants should think about buying. It was not a direction for higher-income tenants to think about buying but, going forward, they may well think about buying—86% of people aspire to own their own home. This may be the opportunity for them.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said that the pilots need not be inequitable because they do not need to introduce the new rents. I would have thought that the reason for the pilots would be to see how the new rents actually work.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the CAB and whether conversations were going on. We are in continued engagement with the CAB and other—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know. I will get that figure to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister just referred to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam; does that not come in a much later group?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did wonder, given that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was not in his place. I will just refer to the Marshalled List. The noble Lord is absolutely right, so if noble Lords could just ignore what I have said on Amendment 82AA.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is in the detail.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sure the Minister has picked up from the debates on this group and the previous couple of groups that, the more we drill into this, the more and more complicated it is getting. She and her ministerial colleagues have some job to get this right. I am sure it will get worse. It is very difficult to get this right and, in some ways, I wish her all the best.

On another point, I think I heard the Minister give the number of people on incomes of more than £50,000. If she is using that figure in her arguments, why are we setting the rates for higher rents to start at £30,000 and £40,000?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I was simply making the point that there are a high number of households with incomes of more than £50,000.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I get that point, but it is a bit odd that the Bill before us refers to incomes of £30,000 and £40,000, but in her argument the Minister uses an income of £50,000.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

The Minister may be coming to this but I asked—as I did at Second Reading and am still waiting for the answer—why the threshold has been reduced from that used in the voluntary scheme.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

What amendment is the Minister speaking to? I do not think we have got to these amendments yet. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has only had his own amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think there is a typo. We are on the wrong clause.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Can I check if I am yet again speaking to amendments that we have not got to? Amendment 82GAE is in this group. Would noble Lords like to discuss it or withdraw it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This has never been in previous lists. We just noticed it now. When the Minister stared speaking we thought, “What’s this?”, because we had two amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which clearly go together, but I now see from the amendment sheet that it has been put in the list.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It clearly is a mistake and I really apologise if my noble friend has waited all this time.

[Lord True]

I was trying to say to my noble friend that I had come into the Chamber. I do not particularly wish to intervene, but we have patiently gone through six days in Committee and we have had many opportunities to look at groupings. I think it is a courtesy to the House if noble Lords who have a problem with the groupings—which are published, they are out there, and we pick them all up—make it clear before that they are not happy with the groupings. Otherwise, I think the House is entitled to expect things that are grouped together will be discussed together.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

If it helps the Minister, I have a Whips sheet from Thursday and the grouping of that amendment is not on there. It is a typo. Thursday’s sheet has the two amendments down in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam but this paper has been worked on and has appeared today. I do not produce the Government’s Whips sheet for debates but Thursday’s sheet, which we signed up to, has my noble friend’s two amendments and nothing else.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would noble Lords like to hear it tonight or on Thursday? I am not going to waste any more time on this; I will finish my comments where I should have finished them and say to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that when I have guidance, I will be happy to share it with him.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

How is this an efficient use of assets? It seems to me a most cumbersome, inefficient tax and raid on council housing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Lord and I will disagree on this but it is incumbent on owners, whether private owners, the Government or local authorities, to make the best use of their assets, whether that means selling expensive ones or not. I accept that we will have to agree to disagree on this but that is our view.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, talked about the right to buy not delivering one-for-one replacements and questioned how the policy would do so. In the first year following reinvigoration, 354,000 additional homes were sold, and by the end of the second quarter of 2015-16 there were 4,117 new starts and acquisitions. That means that, to date, authorities are delivering a new home for every one sold.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the inadequate position we find ourselves in. I know that the Minister is frustrated as well but it would be useful if she could tell the House what discussions are going on in the department. This is absolutely ridiculous now. I am no expert in procedure but this is definitely a Bill that should be paused. It is ridiculous. To be told that we will get stuff months and months in the future is just not good enough.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and hope I might be able to perhaps provide some comfort to noble Lords. The secondary legislation will be subject, obviously, to parliamentary scrutiny. We want to set it out as soon as possible but we also want to ensure that it is correct and informed by accurate data. I cannot provide exact timescales for secondary legislation at this stage but I will do my best to provide further information on this on Report. I know that that is not perfect, but I hope noble Lords will accept what I say at this point. I will do my best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will certainly undertake to engage with the different sectors because they are at the heart of where potential abuse lies. I am very happy to meet with noble Lords in that context because the Government certainly want to guard against abuse in this way. I thank the noble Baroness for making that suggestion because it makes everybody’s life easier if there is confidence in the policy. She might not like the policy, as she says, but if there is confidence in the policy working better, then I will do that and I will invite her to it. My noble friend Lord Lansley is not in his place, but he talked about wanting to work with the Government about agreements. We have been engaging with local authorities, including South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, and we will as we continue to go forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made a very good point about preventing properties being sold to foreign buyers. It is absolutely right that we should avoid residential properties being bought up and sitting empty as an investment, as they sometimes do in London. Some of them are empty but, whether or not they are, the point is that we want housing for people on low incomes here to be able to avail themselves of.

I mentioned the point about stamp duty the other day and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, immediately picked it apart. In April 2017 we will be introducing capital gains tax for owners based overseas. We have also halved the time that a property can sit empty before capital gains tax is due. I thank noble Lords for their very constructive comments, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister sits down, I think I heard her say that the money collected from councils would be used only for housing—I think she said that with regard to the levy. I looked at Clause 73, which says that where there is an overpayment it is kept by the Government and will be used to offset for future years. It also talks about Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003, which talks about capital receipts being used to meet capital expenditure but also “debts or other liabilities”. We are going to come to this later anyway, but I think that what she said and what this technically does might be quite different.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will look at it again. I am assuming that the debts and liabilities are housing loans.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for voicing Lib Dem support and enthusiasm for right to buy—the first party to do so. I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for taking part in the debate. I fully understand their desire to ensure that affordable housing is not lost from an area through the sale of properties under the voluntary right to buy, and the particular concerns relating to rural areas.

Amendment 57, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, will limit how housing associations are able to use the proceeds from sales under the voluntary right to buy by requiring the replacement to be of the same tenure and in the same area as the property sold. I thank noble Lords for their comments on this matter. However, we think it is important that housing associations should have flexibility and not be restricted in replacing like for like when this may not be the best solution for the area. One for one has never been on a like-for-like basis. We have always given that flexibility. By seeking to constrain housing associations’ discretion from Whitehall, we are limiting their ability to manage their assets to deliver their business and charitable objectives. We believe that these decisions are best taken by housing associations in the light of local conditions and need. My noble friend Lord Horam mentioned Westminster, which is very cognisant of its key workers, and the interventions it is making in conjunction with its local housing associations. This is the type of freedom we wish to see.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the replacement homes will not be affordable. Not everyone can live in exactly the location they wish to regardless of cost, be they social housing tenants, private renters or home owners. The best way to make homes affordable is to build more. I do not think any noble Lords disagree on that point. Our reforms will ensure that social housing is prioritised for those who need it most. Obviously, tonight we are talking about one-for-one replacement but there are all sorts of tenures of housing—for rent, for purchase, for low-cost rent—and housing associations will take all those issues into account when determining what types of houses to build.

Noble Lords asked whether we had achieved one for one, and made the point about two for one in London. In 2013 there were 3,054 sales under right to buy and by 2015 there were 4,017 starts, so I think noble Lords can agree that that was on an approximately one-for-one basis in terms of sales and new constructions. In London in 2012-13 there were 632 sales and in quarter 2 of 2015-16 there were 1,240 starts. I appreciate that noble Lords will immediately pick up the three-year time difference but under that agreement there were three years in which to replace the houses sold. In the rest of the country that figure has been achieved and in London it has been exceeded.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the flexibility around the tenure of the replacement units will erode the housing stock. Housing associations should be free to replace the properties sold with alternative tenures—they have done and they will do, I am sure—where this may be appropriate for the community they serve. This can include shared ownership, which we talked about in previous debates. Obviously, a much lower deposit is required for a shared-ownership property.

The question was asked: what does the deal mean for London and social housing in the capital? The largest London housing associations have all signed up to the agreement. As with the rest of the country, receipts from the sales will be reinvested in the delivery of new homes. I will say again that these are additional homes and, as noble Lords have said, the homes sold remain homes for the people who have bought them.

I now turn to Amendment 60. I fully understand the desire of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock, to ensure that the replacements promised under the terms of the voluntary agreement are realised. This amendment would also require the replacement property to be in the same area and of the same tenure as the property sold. The agreement reached with the housing association sector is that, nationally, for every house sold a new one will be built—I am happy to confirm that again—which will increase the overall number of much-needed houses in this country. However, the type of home and where it should be are decisions that are best taken by those housing associations, many of which will be local and will want to replace those homes locally.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Does the noble Baroness think it is regrettable that if this carries on, we will lose social housing in the centre of London? The risk is that it will go to the outer London boroughs, and here in the centre of London there will be less social housing for rent.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have been through the various types of social housing products that are available for housing associations to bring forward. Obviously, shared ownership schemes may be very attractive for them to build. The figures that I gave noble Lords about starts and replacements in London demonstrate that over the last three years, the delivery has been two for one. I would imagine that local housing associations, including those in London, will want to provide a mix of tenure. I do not deny the point the noble Lord is making about London being so expensive.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Baroness mentioned the figures for starts. Does she have the figures for where those starts are in London? They may not be available now, but it would be very helpful if she could provide them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know by borough where those starts are but will, if I can, provide the noble Lord with the figures. It would be interesting to see exactly where they are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that statistic. One of the points that we made back in the group of amendments on rogue landlords was that the vast majority of landlords are decent landlords.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. It highlighted the problems we have with this part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, said that we are not like Paris or New York where people have been priced out of parts of those cities. They are unable to live there because they cannot afford to be there. I agree that we are not there, and I would never want us to get to that situation. London is one of the greatest cities in the world, and it works because you have rich and poor people living on the same street, living side by side and getting on very well together. That is how London works. It may not be the Government’s intention, but the Bill could create a situation where people are driven out of whole parts of London, which would be bad. We cannot have everybody doing key-worker jobs or in modest or lower-paid jobs all living in outer London boroughs. That would not be right. It worries me that we will get to that situation with the policy we are pursuing today.

We will come back to this on Report. I look forward to the information on housing starts that the Minister said she will send us. It will be very interesting to know where those starts are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I did promise the noble Lord information on starter homes. I will be bringing it forward in due course, but I have not got it ready for today. I have not forgotten my commitment to him.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for both his endeavours and his amendment, which proposes an equity loan scheme for housing association tenants in place of the voluntary right-to-buy discount. I understand that part of the reason for introducing this amendment was to reopen the debate about the funding of the right-to-buy discount.

An equity loan, by its nature, is not a discount and has to be repaid by the tenant. This is a very different offer—more akin to the Help to Buy scheme than to an extension of the right-to-buy scheme. This will inevitably make home ownership less attractive to the very tenants we are trying to reach: those on lower wages who are being priced out of home ownership because of high house prices.

We had a clear manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants, and the voluntary agreement with the sector will give 1.3 million families the chance to purchase a home at right-to-buy level discounts. Our extension of the right to buy is about offering housing association tenants the same opportunity as council tenants. Providing equity loans to tenants, as proposed under this amendment, would not provide the same offer to them. We have been clear that housing associations will be fully compensated for the right-to-buy discounts offered to tenants and that this would be funded through the sale of vacant local authority high-value assets. They will be fully compensated. There are billions of pounds locked up in local authority housing assets. It is only right that when they become vacant they are sold, enabling the receipts to be reinvested in building new homes and supporting home ownership through the right to buy.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Why is it only right that they are sold? They should be used for other families who need social housing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Can the noble Lord—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In your remarks, you said that it is only right that these houses are sold to provide receipts. Why are they not just used for other families who need a large council house?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, part of the receipt is reinvested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister did not get the impression that, if a high-value house becomes free in Stockport, it is then not ready to be let to another tenant on the waiting list. It is not surplus property, it is empty property in the course of transition from one tenant to another. If the incoming tenant is to be told that the property is not available because it is being sold to participate in some government confiscation scheme, that does not provide the social welfare outcome which this House wants.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I grew up in a large council house in Southwark and my family benefited very much from that. Denying other, larger families that is just wrong.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said, we are coming to the detailed mechanism of high-value assets soon and that is certainly one thing we will be discussing. It is very important that noble Lords make these points at this stage in the Bill, because they will form part of the Government’s consideration. I am not, in any way, dismissing the points made. We will need houses and dwellings of different sizes, but the mechanism of how that will work will be set out in due course.

This is probably not the best hour or the best group of amendments in which to start discussing this, but I should like to address the points of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, about the value for money assessment. We are clear that we have done the right level of analysis to support the decision-making at each stage and to ensure that proposals would offer good value for money. We have done an economic analysis for the right-to-buy extension, taking into account the fact that that would be funded from the receipt of vacant high-value asset council sales, which shows that there would be a clear economic benefit. We have also undertaken an analysis for the voluntary right-to-buy pilot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, looking at the time, I intend to be very brief in moving my amendment, your Lordships will be pleased to know. Amendments 59A and 82B in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Amendment 59A seeks to add a duty on the Regulator of Social Housing so that, when monitoring compliance,

“the Regulator must make a report where a community-led housing provider … has used grants made by the Secretary of State to facilitate or meet a right to buy discount”.

Amendment 82B would put in the schedule exactly what is meant by community-led housing scheme, for the avoidance of doubt.

Noble Lords all around the Chamber have expressed support today for co-operative and community-led housing, but without my Amendment 59A we would have very little information about what is happening in this part of the social housing sector as a result of the policies being implemented in this part of the Bill. The group also includes a clause stand part debate. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will be equally brief. Amendment 59A, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would require the Regulator of Social Housing to monitor and report where a community-led housing provider or TMO had used grants made by the Secretary of State in respect of a right-to-buy discount.

Let me be clear again that TMOs are not part of the right-to-buy arrangements. Under the voluntary right to buy, the landlord/tenant relationship is with the property-owning landlord as a registered provider, and the tenant would exercise their right to buy against that landlord. The amendment does not make sense in that landscape. If the concern is about different tenures—social tenants and owner-occupiers—being part of a TMO, there is no reason to believe that tenants and owners could not come together in this way.

I appreciate that the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, want to protect TMOs and other community-led organisations that are not landlords so that they continue to help tenants to play an active role. The voluntary right-to-buy agreement contains protections that allow housing associations discretion not to sell properties that are important to their communities and clients.

The purpose of Amendment 82B is to create a definition of community-led housing, but there is no need to, as it is a colloquial umbrella term to cover a range of different and distinct structures and organisations, such as fully mutual co-operatives, community land trusts and tenant management organisations. The Government very much support community-led housing, and these bodies have distinct and specific legal definitions. Fully mutual housing associations are defined in Section 5 of the Housing Act 1985. Community land trusts are defined in statute in Section 79 of the Housing and Regeneration Act. TMOs are defined through the Housing (Right to Manage) (England) Regulations 2012, Part 1 Section 3.

Additionally, the organisations are different in nature. Fully mutual housing co-ops will generally own their homes, community land trusts may or may not, and TMOs will generally act as a managing agent for housing owned by a local authority. Imposing an additional overarching definition would be unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, yes.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister. That is very helpful. We put the amendments down because there is concern in the housing sector about what is happening in this clause, so her comments are very useful and welcome. I am very happy to withdraw my amendment but again place on record my thanks to the Minister for the way she handled the debates today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Homelessness: Rough Sleeping

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 7th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not have any information about how many rough sleepers are over 60 or under 30 but if such information exists, I will get it to my noble friends. Statistics have been put out in the press showing that one in five rough sleepers is a migrant. I will look at government figures to see whether that can be confirmed.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords—

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, all I can say is that local authorities know their market, and they can use Section 106 for other types of housing on sites, whether for sale or for rent, in addition to starter homes where viability allows, as well as for infrastructure. I cannot answer more clearly than that at this time.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister is right to say that local authorities know their market. The core problem with this Bill and its provisions, which has not been taken account of, is that of the powers being taken to the centre of the Government.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Those powers are a specific type of power for the Secretary of State, but that does not take away from any of the other powers that local authorities might wish to use, viability allowing, when agreeing Section 106 for development in terms of other affordable homes for sale or for rent.

If I may, I wish to make a bit more progress. Our analysis has shown that in regions outside London, we expect that, on average, up to 60% of eligible households currently renting privately would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home. Within London, we expect that up to 47% of eligible households currently renting privately would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home. For example, 59% of eligible households currently renting privately across London would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home in Hammersmith and Fulham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, first, if someone is paying 4% on a mortgage, they might not be getting the best deal on the market. Secondly, I just repeat my point that £450,000 is the cap on a starter home and £356,000 is the implied price of a new-build first-time buyer property. I do not think we are necessarily talking about the same thing.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

But the point is that the figures she referred to are for the whole of London. The price of a property in the Elephant and Castle, around where I grew up, is £450,000 or more. This may apply on the edge of London, but not anywhere near here.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I recognise there are vast variations in house prices in London. We talked about Lewisham the day before yesterday, and we could talk about every borough in London today, but I am simply giving an average implied price. I accept that Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea are more expensive—I could not afford to live there—but there are places in London that are more affordable than others. This is simply an average price.

Amendment 37B would restrict who could buy a starter home to those purchasing with a mortgage only. We are allowing starter homes to be purchased only by qualifying first-time buyers under the age of 40, with limited exceptions. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked whether this fits in with the Equality Act. I confirm that an equality impact assessment has been prepared for the starter homes provisions in the Bill, and this will be kept under constant review in line with the duties under the Equality Act. In addition, a further assessment is being prepared to accompany the Government’s consultation proposals for starter home regulations.

We need to prioritise our assistance to the generation of people in their 20s and 30s who have been disproportionately affected by the increasing affordability pressures over the last 30 years. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the very good point that this is a very popular product and significant interest is already being generated on these homes. He was correct that this is done on a first come, first served basis. He also made the point about it being a good way of increasing mobility in the social rented sector and for those currently on waiting lists. I totally agree with that point—it is. We will be ensuring that resale letting restrictions are included in our regulations. The aim is to provide a place to live in. We are consulting on these requirements for the regulations shortly, to seek wider views and to ensure that they operate fairly and effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can only reiterate my commitment to sharing the consultation once it has been published and to ensuring that as soon as regulations can be brought forward, they will be.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister not go a bit further than that? Can she not just agree here today to go through the usual channels to explore the point that my noble friend has made about the possibility of having further process at Third Reading?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, matters may have been resolved by Third Reading, but I will speak to officials to see what can be done to expedite the detail of the regulations as soon as possible. I can do no more than that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I have explained that having a mortgage will not stop gaming. There are always going to be abuses of the system, but we are trying to address an age group which has been disenfranchised from the purchasing market. I hope that what I have said gives to some extent reassurance to the noble Lord and that he will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can I push the noble Baroness a little further on this? I do not think it is good enough to say that there are always going to be abuses; we need a little more than that. There will be scams and shams, so we have to make sure that we will be able to identify them and sort them out.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not disagree—

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can, my Lords. We can all argue about statistics and, given that I have not seen the report, it is very difficult to make a comparison of the different figures. However, I will do so.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

In her earlier remarks, the Minister said that authorities could negotiate a higher discount on the property with developers. If they can do that, why can they not negotiate a lower discount as well?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Because the whole point of the starter home is that it will be available at a discounted level to those under the age of 40. I will give the noble Lord the workings out of why that was arrived at. I am guessing that it was derived for a similar reason to that for the affordable homes discount, which has now been going for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is very helpful, thank you. We used to hear from the Benches opposite about how local authorities knew best but it has all gone very quiet now. I am thinking of the Localism Act, which was never mentioned again from the Benches opposite.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that anything changes there. Nobody would promote any louder than I the view that local areas know best but local areas also know that government has certain expectations of them, and it has ever been thus.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked me for a breakdown of demand. I elected earlier on to provide that in due course and I will write to him. I do not have it at my fingertips at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this is all relative. When house prices come down, the next house up on the ladder will also be cheaper. Under the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Best, after five years the couple in question would benefit from a quarter of the discount. I accept that after 20 years they would benefit from the whole discount. I know there is not agreement in the Committee about this, but we want people who work hard and want to move up the housing ladder to be able to do so.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

We all want people who work hard to move up the housing ladder, but the problem here is that this is such a small group of people.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister explain something? I think most of us would sympathise with trying to find the best way to help people into owner-occupation, particularly given the pressure of house prices. We could argue whether it should be equity loans, starter home discounts of 20% or anything else, but why this sudden fixation with mobility for people who are no longer first-time buyers but second-time buyers and maybe, subsequently, third-time buyers to be free of any discount so that they can enter the market without having had to save, as my noble friend said, in the way that everybody else has? Why do the Government consider it to be part of their responsibility to help people become second-time buyers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, housing is an issue for government and there is a huge demand on housing in this country. This scheme is not to the exclusion of other products—I must stress that it is not as though we have switched off the tap to all other products. Sitting on these Benches, one might think that there were no other products on the market, but there are. This is one way of helping that demographic for whom home ownership has been so out of reach.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I asked a Question this week about people on the living wage for whom homes are out of reach—people who are trapped in the private rented sector. This is not helping those people.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did not disagree with the noble Lord. I pointed out the various things that were available, such as shared ownership and affordable rented properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes an extremely valid point and I will ask about what the mechanism would be there. People will be queueing up for these homes anyway because they are going to be appealing for first-time buyers, but I will ask about the precise mechanism by which that would work—whether, effectively, there is competition in the market. That is a valid question.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My noble friend indeed makes a valid point. If people went on to do that, it would be fraudulent activity, so I presume that there would be appropriate penalties. People need to know that, if they behaved like that, they would get caught and pay a heavy price.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not disagree. We would not want to introduce a system that was fraught with potential fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, I understand my noble friend’s point. Under our proposals in the NPPF national planning policy consultation, small-scale development in the green belt for starter homes could take place, but only where it is endorsed by the local community. I take my noble friend’s point, certainly in light of recent flooding, about the need to have this very finely balanced and for green belt not to be used as a sloppy method for builders to be able to build willy-nilly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On that point, the idea for this policy was originally to build on brownfield sites and get them back into use, but the policy has now been widened. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, people will opt for the easier options. I am worried that we will end up with a situation where we will still have the old brownfield sites, because no one wants to build on them, and other options, in our towns and elsewhere, will become more attractive for people to build on.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am in total agreement with the noble Lord and with my noble friend. One thing we are testing is whether there should be more flexibility on developing brownfield that is in the green belt—that exists, of course, but it is 0.1% of all green belt. It has been suggested that there should be a bit more flexibility on that, but not on the green belt itself. The noble Lord and my noble friend are absolutely right that these will become go-to sites for developers unless we are very careful.

Amendment 42 seeks to prevent housing regeneration schemes from incorporating starter homes. In January the Prime Minister announced an ambitious new programme to regenerate public sector estates, to tackle deprivation and build more homes. As I announced at this Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago, £140 million of loan support funding has been made available to support regeneration and encourage investment from the private sector. My noble friend Lord Heseltine has appointed his estates regeneration advisory panel and its first meeting was held in February. Clause 2 is very clear on the definition of a starter home, which we need to ensure our reforms are widely understood. Clause 4 sets out the requirement for the provision of starter homes for residential development. My department will be bringing forward a technical consultation on the requirement so that we get it right.

The consultation will recognise that there are some developments where the inclusion of starter homes could help to secure a diversity of tenures and support mixed communities, but that compulsory inclusion could alter the viability, as my noble friend Lord True pointed out. But as my noble friend Lord Horam said, we should not exclude it at the outset—I think that that is absolutely right. I reassure noble Lords that our consultation will invite views on whether these schemes should be subject to the minimum starter homes requirement. As my noble friend Lord Horam absolutely rightly pointed out, engagement with tenants is crucial.

My noble friend Lord Heseltine was very keen to make sure that this is a truly genuine engagement with tenants, as well as other people involved in the scheme. So we need to wait for the outcome of the consultation to enable us to take into account the views and expertise of the sector. We need to work with those who will make this work on the ground to ensure that we get it right. Setting the requirement through regulations will help us to keep this operation under review and give more flexibility in the future.

Given my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know but, as I said either earlier today or on Tuesday—the days are rolling together—I expect that the size of the sites will be roughly what we see now in terms of affordable housing. However, that is my guess rather than something that I have been informed about.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way—she has been very kind in that respect. Part of the problem is that you may agree a certain size for a site but then a rumour goes round that that is not the case. Although it may not be the intention, people will fear that these sites will be lost, in which case they will not bring the land forward for use.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may make another point about covenants, which many philanthropic landlords attach to their sites. We appreciate their benefits. Sometimes sites are donated to the local community and, if the donor wants to put a covenant on the land prohibiting its use for starter homes, that is within their gift. Although, again, we stress the benefits of starter homes in communities that are looking to create homes, we also appreciate the other factors that are in play.

We want to see policies working together. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham highlighted how well-intentioned policies working together can in fact conflict with each other. We know that we need growth in rural areas to allow young people to stay in the communities in which they grew up. However, we also want neighbourhood planning to play a role in identifying the sites on which starter homes should be built so that there is collaboration between the landowners, the developers and the communities that they serve. That is an important point. One of the benefits of neighbourhood planning has been its collaborative nature, and that must be a factor in the doubling of acceptability of housebuilding that we have seen. Local people feel far more in control in terms of what is put in their community than perhaps they did 10 or 20 years ago. That is not a political point; it is something that we have all learned over the years.

However, we do not agree that starter homes on rural exception sites should be in perpetuity rather than having the five-year restriction that we are proposing. We believe that there should be a consistent model for first-time buyers. Why should rural workers not have the same opportunities as workers in towns and cities? They, too, need to move and grow.

We are currently considering all representations and will issue our formal response to the planning consultation in due course. Any changes to national planning policy will be a material consideration which a local planning authority must take into account when making planning decisions and developing planning policy. If changes are made, starter homes will be an additional, not a replacement, type of affordable housing which can be delivered on these sites following consultation with the local community.

Amendment 50C would allow local councils to ensure that the requirement for starter homes did not have to be met on rural exception sites. We will consult separately on the starter homes requirement for suitable, reasonably-sized sites for the regulations. We will also test in the consultation any exemptions from the requirement. Again, it is right that we discuss this with the housing industry and ensure that we achieve the best outcome.

I want to be clear that the consultation will include a minimum site size for the starter homes requirement. Any sites, urban or rural, below the size threshold will not, as I have said, be subject to the starter homes requirement. Starter homes can be delivered on sites below the threshold but this will not be a compulsory requirement; it will be a matter for local determination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not. What I have said is that I strongly expect—although I do not know—that it would be very much in line with what was expected through the affordable housing duty. However, that is just a guess from me at this point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The Minister said that people living in rural communities should have the right to benefit from the starter homes policy. I am absolutely fine with that, but the whole issue is about how much people earn and whether they would be able to afford these starter homes. My noble friend Lady Hollis has mentioned a number of times that these homes may be unaffordable. During the debate a couple of days ago my noble friend talked about an area in Norfolk where building two or three bungalows in the village would free up some of the family homes in order to get people to go there. It is regrettable that that is going to be the case here. If we stick with this policy, we are not looking at the wider implication that, actually, it is unaffordable for most people in rural areas.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not agree with much of what the noble Lord said. Obviously, the mix of tenures is essential, whether it is starter home level, shared ownership, affordable rents or social rents, and a number of funding streams are available for the different types of tenure. I think that the noble Lord and I may be saying the same thing but in a different way. I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, six terraced houses would be quite a small site size. It is important for noble Lords to know in due course what the site sizes will mean, and I will let the noble Lord know. I am guessing at this point, but six sounds like a very small site size, and therefore probably exempt.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Just one final point. I was pleased to hear that we may be agreeing after all; I am not sure that we are, but that would be great. The point about rural areas is not just what happens in 10 years—the important issue is the people who are living there.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I addressed quite a lot of my remarks to the local test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is a very good question. Can I come back to the noble Lord on that?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate this evening. My amendment was only a probing amendment, although I fully accept that it is not the best that I have ever proposed from this Bench or elsewhere in the House. It is important that we had a debate on infrastructure, and we will discuss that further in the days ahead. It is very likely that it will come back to us on Report.

I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her concerns about developers having these proposals. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his support, as well as my noble friends Lady Hollis of Heigham and Lady Young. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. This amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. No one can deny that the sections of the Bill on starter homes are not without their critics. They include an interesting policy idea for building homes on brownfield sites that had not previously been considered for housing, having transformed overnight into the main housing policy for the Government to the exclusion of all others. This has been done without a Green Paper, without a White Paper, without any pre-legislative scrutiny or proper consultation and without any testing to see if this is the right way forward to deliver the homes that we all agree need to be built. I hope that noble Lords, whatever their view, can all agree that it is a bit risky and not the way to roll out a new policy. The saying “Act in haste, repent at leisure” could not refer to a more suitable policy.

On top of that, we must not forget that we have not seen a regulation yet, and we are not going to see the regulations perhaps until the autumn—which, when we consider the implications of this Bill, is nothing short of outrageous.

To try to bring some order to the whole process, we put down Amendment 53E for consideration by your Lordships’ House. It would provide for a sunset clause to bring an end to the programme unless the Secretary of State makes regulations for these clauses not to be repealed. That statutory instrument would have to be laid and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The period of three years was selected because we are in a fixed-term Parliament, so the Government can accept this amendment in the full knowledge that they will be able to get the regulations through Parliament without the risk of a general election getting in the way—unless of course some unforeseen circumstances arise. This is a useful device for the Government to consider, and I hope the noble Baroness will look at it carefully. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord has just left me with a very horrible thought, but I thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in his absence, for their amendment to introduce a sunset clause to the starter homes provisions. The effect would be that the starter homes provisions would be repealed unless affirmative regulations permitted them to continue.

I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised that I strongly resist this amendment. This Government made a manifesto commitment to deliver 200,000 starter homes. The electorate supported the manifesto and expect the Government to deliver. We intend starter homes to be a new but enduring aspect of housing delivery. We have heard how first-time buyers are increasingly unable to access the housing market, and we want to ensure there are new opportunities for home ownership and to support young people into home ownership.

A sunset clause would introduce uncertainty to delivery. It would cause developers to pause as the sunset period approached and would be unhelpful not only in starter home delivery but in overall housing supply. If we want to achieve the uplift in housing supply we need, we must give clarity about the future rather than uncertain messages.

I accept that starter homes are new and we are embarking on a new journey in affordable housing delivery. We have made provision in regulations that give us flexibility for the future in setting the starter home requirement, the minimum site threshold and any exemptions to the requirement. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, but want to place on the record our thanks from these Benches, and from the whole Committee, to the noble Baroness. She has handled the debate today and all the questions from around the Committee with great skill. We appreciate that she has been very kind to us all and thank her very much for that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

London: Housing Costs

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to help people on the living wage in London to own their own homes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, this Government are working closely with the mayor and the GLA on measures to increase supply and boost home ownership for all Londoners. These include London Help to Buy, which provides equity loans of up to 40% of a property’s price to homebuyers in the capital, and London shared ownership, which could see Londoners in a borough such as Lewisham buying a home with a deposit of as little as £3,500.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first I declare an interest as a councillor of the London Borough of Lewisham. The Minister recently confirmed to me in a Moses Room debate:

“I agree that not everybody will be able to afford a starter home”.—[Official Report, 22/2/16; col. GC 40.]

There lies the problem. Funds are being diverted into the starter home scheme, for homes which are unaffordable to most people on modest incomes, from other housing schemes. Why does the Minister think it is acceptable that the Government are reducing the options for people on modest incomes and the living wage, who are often at the poorer end of the private rented sector, which will mean that often their dream of owning their own home will remain only a dream?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are a number of products on offer to first-time buyers, including shared ownership, which might require a deposit of as little as £1,400. There is Rent to Buy and a number of other products should people want home ownership.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart for explaining on behalf of my noble friend Lord Flight the reasons behind Amendments 24 and 25. If enacted, Amendment 24 would remove the requirement for a landlord to notify a “relevant person” that their tenant’s deposit has been secured in a Government-authorised tenancy deposit protection scheme.

Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 defines a relevant person as,

“any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant”.

This can be a family member but in most cases it is a charity such as Crisis or Shelter, which offers deposit loan schemes to vulnerable people with a history of homelessness, or a local authority, which pays the deposit through housing benefit in cases where tenants are out of work or on a low income.

I welcome proposals which reduce burdens for business and I understand the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled. However, the proposals set out in Amendment 24 have the potential to adversely affect the willingness of a charity or a local authority to pay a deposit on behalf of a tenant. This could lead to vulnerable people or those on low incomes being unable to access the private rented sector, which is something we would want to avoid.

Amendment 25 would allow tenancy deposit protection information to be provided to the tenant by their landlord electronically by email. The Government welcome proposals that seek to reduce burdens on business but in this case primary legislation is not required. The aim of this amendment can be achieved through secondary legislation, using powers in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. I will be happy to look further into the proposals outside this Chamber and consider introducing secondary legislation at a later date. I hope that this explanation will reassure my noble friend and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Amendments 26 and 31, which were tabled by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, seek to reduce the time taken to repay a deposit to a tenant or landlord where either party is absent or unco-operative. I accept that there is a minor cost to a landlord or tenant in arranging for a solicitor or magistrate to witness a statutory declaration, but this process is necessary for the landlord or tenant to prove beyond any doubt that they have attempted to contact the other party and that they have not been able to reach an agreement on the amount claimed from the deposit before it is repaid. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, gave just before he sat down underlines this. Removing the requirement could leave the process open to abuse, with no independent verification that the other party had been contacted to give their consent. With this explanation, and given that the vast majority of claims are settled without a problem, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would require a review of the tenancy deposit scheme. I understand that this amendment has been tabled in order to ensure that tenants are treated fairly at the end of their tenancy, and I know that we can all agree with that aim. My department has a governance role to ensure that the schemes are working well. The performance of the schemes is monitored through monthly key performance indicators, regular governance meetings and information provided by the tenancy deposit scheme users’ group, which includes landlord and consumer representatives.

From the overall feedback received, we are satisfied that the alternative dispute resolution system generally works well. Of the 11.5 million deposits which have been protected since the launch of the scheme, less than 2% have gone to adjudication. On average, following adjudication, 27% are awarded to tenants, 17% to landlords or agents, and just over half are split between the two sides.

Looking to the future, we are satisfied that the tenancy deposit protection schemes awarded contracts for new custodial schemes from 1 April this year have the necessary alternative dispute resolution processes in place to ensure that tenants will continue to be treated fairly. This was a key evaluation criterion in our re-procurement exercise carried out last year.

In conclusion, I hope that this explanation will assure noble Lords that tenants’ deposits are and will continue to be returned to them fairly and quickly at the end of the tenancy, and I hope that they will not press their amendments.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 33B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, which gives the Secretary of State powers to underwrite a national tenancy deposit bond guarantee scheme. In 2014-15, 220,000 households were prevented from becoming homeless. Of these, 54% were assisted to remain in their own home and 46% were helped to a new home. Statistics show that in at least 42% of cases households were assisted into private rented sector accommodation. In support of this, many local authorities, housing associations and charities in England already have a rent deposit or bond scheme.

The Government have already funded Crisis to the tune of nearly £14 million to develop a programme to help single homeless people to access the private rented sector. Nearly 9,000 single homeless people have been helped into private rented sector accommodation so far, with a 90% tenancy sustainment rate. This Government’s approach is to support a provision of resources to local authorities at a local level. This is because they can then use the funding flexibly to meet local needs. Of course, different areas have particular requirements. To divert scarce funding into a single national approach would not always be the best or most effective use of resources and to specifically underwrite a national scheme may not be the best use of resources.

I hope that this explanation will reassure noble Lords and I hope that they will not press their amendments. But before I sit down I will answer a specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the DCLG continuing to fund the private rented sector access programme. We have not made any decision on further funding, but from the start of the programme all funded schemes were required to attract funding from other sources and make plans for future sustainability. I will keep the noble Lord updated on this.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I think her response to the national rent deposit guarantee scheme is quite disappointing. Will she say why? She said that a number of authorities have these schemes, but what is the objection to having a national scheme? We are talking about very modest sums of money.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Lord will accept that the fact that the scheme is currently working very well and that some local authorities may actually decide to underwrite the schemes themselves in certain cases to prevent homelessness is—and we are looking after every single penny—a reason not to do something unless there is evidence to say that we would need to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I will come back briefly to the national deposit scheme. When the noble Baroness writes to my noble friend about the amount of money and the authorities involved in such schemes, will she also say what percentage of tenants are protected by them, and about the thought processes behind how the Government decided not to go for the national scheme? I think she will say that most of it is covered, but what consultation took place to decide not to come forward with a national scheme?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am happy to do that.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, makes a very good point; for example, would it apply to Norfolk, where my noble friend lives? Whether it is one person or two people, they will not get to the £45,000 she is talking about.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We talked about shared ownership earlier on. It may well be the case when one person works and they are on the average or median wage—and by the way, I will write to clarify what might be the art of the possible borough by borough if necessary, which it sounds like I am on the way to doing. Of course, if you look at my borough, it is split down the middle as regards the demographic. I have completely lost my train of thought. It may be that other products such as a shared ownership scheme might be the most appropriate to somebody where the whole household earns the median wage. I was simply trying to illustrate this by an example and I am slightly regretting it now—but I will write to clarify this.

We need a radical shift in the way the housing market supports the young first-time buyer, otherwise we condemn a whole generation to uncertainty and insecurity. As I said earlier, over the last 20 years the proportion of 40 year-olds who own their own home has gone from 61% to 38%.

In specific response to Amendment 37, Clause 1 sets out our position clearly. This consistency of approach is important to ensure our reforms are widely understood, particularly by lenders and developers, and that delivery is maximised. Starter homes are a national priority and all local authorities must play their part in delivery. But as I made clear at Second Reading, and earlier this evening, they are just one part of the package of affordable housing options, and they will increase the choices available to those who wish to own their own home. There is a range of products available, and starter homes will be, rightly, part of that mix. We support the delivery of other tenures. We have funded the delivery of other tenures over this spending review period. But we do not believe that the amendment presented here will serve any useful purpose.

The noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best and Lord Beecham, talked about the Savills and Shelter reports. We expect starter homes to be an entry-level property valued at below the average first-time buyer price for that local area by its very nature. But Savills and Shelter based their work on average house prices. We have examined the affordability of homes to those currently in the private rented sector. Assuming that those households sought to buy in the lower quartile of the first-time buyer market for new-build housing and moved within regions to areas where they can afford to buy, we found that outside London up to 64% of households currently renting privately would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, compared to only 50% who could now buy a similar property priced at full market value. Within London, up to 55% of households currently renting privately will be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, while only 43% could now buy a similar property priced at full market value. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does not believe me.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made a point about starter homes and increasing housing supply. We are designing our starter-home reforms to increase housing supply and not just to change tenures. We want the planning system to release more lands specifically for starter homes, for instance on underused brownfield land not allocated for housing. This is being supported by our £1.2 billion new starter homes land fund, which seeks to propose more brownfield sites for starter homes.

On Amendment 47, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Greaves, argued—in fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did not speak; I am giving her credit when she is not here. The other noble Lords argued that the duty to support starter homes should extend to other types of affordable housing. Clause 3 expects councils to actively support starter homes as a new product in their housing mix. It does not remove the ability to deliver other affordable housing alongside starter homes. Nor does it remove their local planning policy. I expect that most councils will continue to support delivery of a range of affordable housing and have planned policies to help achieve this.

Councils are very aware of their commitments to meet local housing needs, and they will strive to meet these needs. That plays into the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about support for localism other than the duty to provide for starter homes. The Government completely recognise that local councils will be very keen to support delivery of the range of housing products available according to their local needs.

The Government’s record on affordable housing delivery is strong. There were 193,000 affordable homes delivered in England between 2011 and 2015, exceeding the Government’s target by 23,000. In addition, councils are in a position to bring forward more land for affordable housing. More council housing has been built since 2010, as I said, than was built in the previous 13 years, and 2014 saw the highest number of council housing starts for 23 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the money is in the Budget. Affordable homes for rent are grant funded. Contrary to what one might think, they will be the first, not the last, to be built out because they are grant funded. They effectively act as pump-priming money for developers to build. I do not agree with that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made was that this was money agreed in 2015 that covered 2015 to 2018. The noble Baroness said that the money is in the Budget. Is she saying that there is money available for future years? Is that correct, or are we talking about money that will finish in 2018 and we will then decide what will happen post that?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord. That is a very interesting point. I am sure we will return to it when we consider the rest of the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Would the noble Lord like me to respond to that point? I am sorry, I have slightly lost track of who I am responding to. I will carry on and noble Lords can interrupt me if I have not covered something.

It is clear that starter homes are a new product and will provide genuine opportunities for young first-time buyers to gain a secure position on the housing ladder. We want councils to really get behind delivery. For this reason, we want the duty to focus on starter home delivery. We expect this duty on councils to encompass a wide set of activities, such as working with neighbourhood planning groups on starter home delivery and identifying exception sites for starter homes. The Secretary of State will issue guidance setting out what councils should do to meet this, which they must have regard to.

Housing: Affordable Housing

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 22nd February 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will come to the figure on replacements during my speech, if the noble Lord would bear with me.

Until now, the discounts available under right to buy have been available only to tenants in local authority properties and some former council properties. Extending these discounts to housing association tenants in England will end that unfairness and mean that up to 1.3 million more families will get a realistic chance to own their own home. Working with the National Housing Federation, we have secured a voluntary agreement with housing associations to give their tenants the opportunity to buy their own homes with an equivalent discount to the right to buy.

As set out in the voluntary agreement with the National Housing Federation, tenants of housing associations will be eligible for the equivalent discounts that are available under the right to buy of up to £77,900, or £103,900 within London. The extended right to buy will make home ownership affordable for the first time for many more housing association tenants. The Government have been clear that the sale of high-value vacant council housing—I stress vacant—will pay for the cost of compensating housing associations for the discount.

Starter homes will provide an affordable step into home ownership by offering young first-time buyers a minimum 20% discount on a new home. This model gives purchasers the benefit of immediate ownership and, importantly, will help them achieve the step up to their second home in due course. A number of noble Lords made the point about securing that discount in perpetuity. We do not want people five years down the line—or however long it is before they sell their house—to suddenly be at a disadvantage and find there is another cliff for them to overcome. We have decided not to insist on that in perpetuity discount to allow people to step up on the housing market.

We expect starter homes to be valued at below the average first-time buyer price for the local area. Developers must build them for sale to young first-time buyers and will ensure that they price them for this market. With a 20% discount, average market prices for homes bought by first-time buyers in the third quarter of 2015 could be reduced to £145,000 across England, excluding London, enabling more first-time buyers to buy their own home. We have examined affordability of starter homes to those who are currently in the private rented sector. If they were to buy in the lower quartile of the first-time buyer market, outside of London, up to 60% of households, currently renting privately, would be able to secure a mortgage on a starter home, compared with 45% who could buy a similar property at full market value.

There are a number of different points to make about the market, including saving for a deposit through a Help to Buy ISA. We are also looking at the possibility of allowing a Help to Buy equity loan to be offered on a starter home to ensure that a first-time buyer needs only a 5% deposit.

Starter homes are just one part of our package of affordable housing options. They will help to address a real problem of access to home ownership for the under-40s, the one demographic excluded from this market.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about affordable rent. As we have discussed already under the housing Bill, £1.6 billion has been put aside for houses for affordable rent. That will be grant funded, so they are absolutely guaranteed to come on to the market. These are minimum positions for this sector, because local authorities may well do a deal with developers to produce more—and, of course, there is the £4.1 billion that we have put aside for 135,000 shared ownership houses, which will require a deposit of something like £1,400. That may be unaffordable for some people, but I think for most people it will be within the scope of what they can afford.

The noble Lord also made a point about garden cities. The Government are certainly not closed to suggestions about proposals for garden cities; they are a very good way to build a lot of houses and, in fact, to build sustainable communities within certain areas. I know of a number of areas where people are very keen to bring such proposals forward.

A number of noble Lords made the point about the £450,000 cap in London and £250,000 cap outside of London. A cap is precisely what it is—it is not an average house price. Many properties will fall well below that cap, and the Government will keep an eye out to make sure that housebuilders do not abuse that provision for first-time buyers for starter homes.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made the point about the forced sale of high-value assets. The high-value assets sales will not be for occupied properties but for vacant properties at the very top of the market, and details of that will come out in due course. He also made the point about homelessness going to 1980s levels. Homelessness is at less than half of the 2004 peak, and the Government are maintaining spending centrally and locally on homelessness prevention. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about continuing to discuss this issue and bear it in mind as we go through the housing Bill. I think that the last time we had a debate on this matter, I mentioned the rough sleeping social impact bond, which we intend to bring forward. We have brought forward a homelessness SIB, which was the first in the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also talked about replacement of property in the local area. This is what we fully expect: that a housing association will want to build in the local area.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about 53% of housing associations renegotiating right-to-buy agreements. If that happens he will, I am sure, reiterate his words to me; we have, however, no evidence that it will. This agreement was made in good faith and the first five pilot housing associations are already starting on it. He also asked how the exemptions on the right to buy would work. We are very keen that these exemptions are negotiated and agreed locally in a form that is best for the local area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, talked about starter homes being the only game in town. They are a priority for the Government because of the demographic group that has fallen out of home ownership, but they are not the only game in town. Affordable homes for rent, shared ownership, custom build—these will all be promoted in the housing Bill. She mentioned flexibility for councils, and I totally agree—other than the duty in relation to starter homes, councils will have flexibility on what is best for their areas.

I am conscious of the time, but I had better answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, before I get told off again. He asked about the quality of housing. That is a very good point. Design quality will be a focus of my noble friend Lord Heseltine in estates regeneration. We are not trying to gentrify estates; we are trying to give people on regenerated estates the quality of life that they deserve.

The noble Lord also asked whether starter homes are a gimmick. They are not a gimmick. We recognise that the under-40s are being increasingly precluded from the housing market and we want to reverse that position. He rightly made the point that historically, London and the south-east have been the hardest areas for people to own their own homes. That is why we are focusing so much on providing not just one-for-one replacement, but two-for-one replacement, for people accessing their own homes in London.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about infrastructure funding in connection with some starter home projects. Infrastructure funding can be accessed through Section 106. He is right that CIL is not applicable here, although local authorities can negotiate Section 106 infrastructure funding if it is viable—we do not want to push developments out of viability. Finally—because I have gone well over time—he talked about social rented sector rents versus private sector rents. In fact, the percentage increase in the social rented sector has got far out of kilter with the private rented sector, and we have tried to address this through the Welfare Reform Bill, although some noble Lords will not agree with that approach at all.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Would the Minister come back to me, perhaps in writing, with regard to people on the new national living wage, a big policy of the Government? They have no way of affording a starter home—a number of organisations have said so. How will the Government address that? The Minister also referred to the fact that, in addition to starter homes, other forms of housing would be supported. Will the Minister write to me about the sums involved?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly write to the noble Lord about the sums of money involved. I agree that not everybody will be able to afford a starter home, which is why we have so many products we intend to bring forward. For shared ownership, which I mentioned earlier, it could be that one needs a deposit of £1,400, which would suddenly make the prospect of home ownership—even if it is part ownership —far more of a possibility. I appreciate, however, that certainly in London the housing market is very expensive.

With that I will finish because I have gone three minutes over time. I did not want to neglect the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, because I did before, but I have a load of questions I have not answered, so perhaps I could write to noble Lords.

Housing Estates

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The right reverend Prelate makes a really good point about regeneration being about not just the physical structures that are in place but some of the social structures that are in place to support communities, and other amenities, as he said, such as schools, hospitals and GP surgeries, that so often are not thought about when we think about regeneration.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in Lewisham. The Government issued an Estate Regeneration Programme prospectus in 2014 that promised a £150 million fund from 2015-16 onwards, with all the funds being drawn down by March 2019. The PM recently announced a £140 million fund for estate regeneration. Will the Minister confirm that these are not the same funds being announced twice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. These are not the same funds being announced twice. The fund that he is referring to was for regeneration projects that had run into difficulty and needed substantial support from government.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, at the start of the first day of Committee, and my first contribution at that stage, I should have declared that I am an elected councillor of the London Borough of Lewisham.

I join other noble Lords in concern about the lack of regulations available for noble Lords to see. Why does the Minister think that it is acceptable to bring forward a Bill in such a sorry state? Does she accept that it is wholly inadequate to suggest that the Government will consult fully and lay regulations months after the Bill has become law?

On Second Reading, and subsequently, I and other noble Lords from these Benches have welcomed the banning order proposals in the Bill. They will provide, we hope, an effective additional tool for local housing authorities to use against rogue landlords and persons engaging in letting agency or property management work who think that they can rip off tenants and treat them badly with impunity. With an ever-increasing number of people forced into the private rented sector, it is important that there are proper safeguards. Peter Rachman became synonymous with the rogue landlords of the 1960s. We want to ensure that we do not have any modern-day Rachmans, or, if we do, that they are dealt with effectively.

I also see the proposals in this part of the Bill as a first step to dealing with the issues in the private rented sector that make life difficult for tenants living at the poorer end of the market. The ward that I represent on Lewisham Council is typical of those that the Bill is aimed at: we have very little local authority housing other than a successful housing co-op, and until recently an overwhelming number of people there were owner-occupiers. However, there has been an explosion in the private rented sector in the last 10 years, for a variety of reasons. Most landlords are very good, with anything from one to a few properties. They often get into the market as a landlord because they have fallen into negative equity, have looked to move on but have been unable to cover their capital outlay. Many of those coming to my surgeries are now private sector tenants, invariably young people, both singles and couples, who cannot get any social housing because they are not in a priority group, cannot go on the housing list, cannot afford to buy and are left to seek refuge in the private rented sector.

When I was a member of Southwark Council in the 1980s, we had properties deemed hard to let—that nobody wanted to live in—and the council was able to let those to single people and couples who would not otherwise qualify for social housing. That category no longer exists. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this group, has identified what is a significant omission from the Bill. The amendment has the full support of noble Lords on these Benches. After we have taken action against the rogue landlords, what happens to their tenants? These will be the very people who have suffered at the hands of the rogue landlord in the first place. It is right that the amendment should be in the Bill and not left to regulations, advice notes or any other procedure that does not involve it being clear in the Bill itself. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, does not accept the amendments today, I hope that she will at least reflect on this proposal and meet with colleagues from your Lordships’ House to discuss this matter before we get to Report.

We also support Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Following an enforcement action resulting in a financial penalty, it must be right that the money should be retained by the local authority and not be lost to the Consolidated Fund or some other place where money from these penalties goes and never returns.

The remaining amendments in this group are government amendments. Amendments 3 and 8 appear to correct drafting errors and make matters clearer. Amendment 4, to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred, seeks to deal with the situation where a person convicted of an offence continues with the breach after conviction. I have an issue with this amendment. Does it go far enough when dealing with people who, at this stage, have no respect for the law, or where the tenants are again in a difficult situation? We may need to look at that further.

My noble friend Lord Beecham will ask more questions of the Minister when she moves her amendments. At that point, we may need to look at the issue further and bring an amendment back on Report.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, first because I ran out of time in a debate the other day and I could not answer him fully. He will get first place on the housing list today.

The noble Lord referred to the regulations which other noble Lords have mentioned at length. I can only reiterate my desire to bring forward as much information as I can. In any event, as I outlined in relation to the previous amendment, none of the orders could be implemented until the regulations were in force. So the orders would not be retrospective; they would only be made after the regulations had gone through. However, I take his point and I will do my best to bring forward as much information as possible.

The noble Lord made a point about social housing being so much harder to obtain than previously for people who would seem to be on modest incomes. That is behind the Government’s priority of building homes for all types of tenure in this Parliament, but focusing particularly on the younger generation that he talks about who are increasingly left out of the housing market. He also asked whether I would meet with him and colleagues before Report and I will be happy to do so.

Amendments 3 and 4 amend Clause 20 so that a person who has been convicted of breaching a banning order and continues to breach the order after that conviction shall commit a further offence and be liable to a fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 2 on the standard scales for each day or part of a day on which the breach occurs. This would equate to up to £50 a day until the breach ceases The amendment also introduces a defence of reasonable excuse in relation to the further offence which will capture any cases where a person was genuinely not able to cease breaching a banning order following conviction because, for example, they were in hospital and therefore unable to manage their affairs to bring tenancies to an end. Rogues who continue to let out their properties despite being convicted for that offence will therefore not only incur punishment for the initial breach of the order but will continue to be punished for each additional day that they remain in breach of the order. This sends out a strong message that a breach of banning order will not be tolerated.

Amendments 5, 6 and 8 amend Clause 22 so that a person who has had a civil penalty imposed upon them for breaching a banning order as an alternative to prosecution, and continues to breach the order despite the first civil penalty, can have an additional civil penalty of up to £30,000 imposed for each period of six months or part of a six-month period in which the breach of the banning order continues. Rogues who continue to let out their properties despite having incurred a civil penalty for the breach will, therefore, be subject to additional civil penalties for continuation of the breach. This sends out the strong message that a breach of a banning order will not be tolerated and will ensure that the business model of rogue landlords is disrupted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I understood what I was saying, but I am sorry if noble Lords did not. I shall be very happy to write and explain. I always use the example of a house that costs £100, so it will probably be something around that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

While all this is going on, I am conscious that there is one very vulnerable tenant and one rogue landlord, who is getting angrier. What protection is there for the poor tenant left there while all this is going on? The landlord is not getting his rent or having his mortgage paid and the council is in there taking things over. I am wondering about the human issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not have any particular concerns about the rogue landlord; I am concerned about the vulnerable tenant. That is why the local authority, or the managing agent of the local authority, is the protection for the tenant who, if they have been subject to the practice of a rogue landlord, might find it a light relief not to be treated in such a contemptuous way.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is absolutely right. I have no worries for the rogue landlord but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke earlier about these characters and some of their despicable practices. I am worried about how they treat their tenants.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

In terms of the charges on the property, I seek some clarification. We are told that the local authority may have taken over management of the property and be taking a charge on it, and will be able to underwrite its costs in one way or another, which seems very sensible. The problem is if there is an existing charge on the property because the owner has a mortgage on it. To seek recompense and take action, the local authority will have to take cognisance of the fact that there is already a charge on that property. A local authority may be very reluctant to incur the cost when it knows it is in a queue and may get nothing whatever at the end of the line.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I see the point, and as I say, my son is living in such accommodation, but the reason owners do it is to protect against squatting as opposed to provide for permanent accommodation. There is no tenancy agreement in place. However, I will go back and think further about this. It is a slightly anomalous situation in the general housing market, given that many of the properties are not housing. With those words, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, my noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Campbell-Savours, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who said that, yes, local authorities have powers, but it is a cumbersome process, and a lack of budgets at present means they will not be effective. With this amendment we would empower only the tenants to seek redress themselves, which is a good thing, although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, does not necessarily agree with me on that.

The electrical safety amendment should not cause the Government any problems whatever. I am pleased that the Government are looking at this area of additional safety. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made a powerful contribution to the reason why the Government should agree to these electrical safety tests in the private rented sector. We believe that these two amendments raise issues of paramount importance, and we will divide the House on both issues if we do not get the necessary movement from the Government on Report —we are very upfront about that straightaway.

I end with the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will hold discussions with noble Lords before we get to Report so that that will not be necessary and an agreement can be reached on both issues. We are very much willing to have those discussions. However, we think these are serious matters, which need looking at. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. I realise that just to name check everyone would take nearly 20 minutes but I pay particular tribute to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The noble Baroness and I have a shared history in a funny sort of way which I only realised when she pointed it out to me when she came into the House. Both of them made great contributions today and I know they will continue to make them in the future.

Naturally, a huge number of points have been raised and I shall try to address as many as I can tonight, particularly those made a number of times. Where I cannot address them tonight, I shall continue to listen and discuss them with noble Lords outside the Chamber and in Committee. Several noble Lords have raised concerns and I shall do my best to allay some of their fears. As the Bill is so wide-ranging I shall try to group my comments together.

The issue that starter homes are unaffordable was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Thurlow, Lord Young of Norwood Green, and Lord Kerslake; by the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Doocey; and by the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Rochester and of St Albans.

I will focus now on the price cap versus the average price. The price cap in the Bill is £250,000 outside of London and £450,000 inside of London. That is a cap and not an average. We fully expect starter homes to be priced well below that cap. The average price for a first-time buyer of properties in England in 2014 was £226,000, and the equivalent starter home would have a discounted price of £169,000. In London the discounted starter home price based on 2014 prices would be £291,000. The experience of help to buy bears this out. Eighty per cent of the properties sold were bought by first-time buyers and the average price of homes purchased under help to buy of £186,000 was well below the national average of £286,000. That means that starter homes will be more affordable than some noble Lords fear.

A number of important questions were raised on how infrastructure would be funded. Local planning authorities will still be able to secure Section 106 contributions for site-specific infrastructure improvements for starter home developments through the planning process. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my noble friends Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lady Hodgson asked how we can ensure that quality is maintained. Again it is very important to learn the lessons of the past and we are working with the sector on this. We know how important quality is and we issued design exemplars for starter homes in March. We will continue to work with the sector on this.

Many noble Lords also raised concerns about starter homes replacing other forms of affordable housing. Local planning authorities will need to apply their planning policies, including those on affordable housing, in the light of the legal starter homes requirement. Local planning authorities know their market and we would also expect them to seek other forms of affordable housing, such as social rent, where it would be viable. Councils have the options to release more land for housing to ensure that they deliver as much housing of all tenures as needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, also said that it should be down to councils to assess needs and deliver on them. Young people need homes now. As my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, the crisis for first-time buyers is acute. We want councils to consider their needs and the Bill will ensure that they do so. Starter homes will form part of a mix of tenures that we want to see on developments. Councils are in a position to build their own social rented housing, and many are starting to do so. The Government fully intend to make sure that affordable homes to rent continue to be provided. That is why in the spending review we confirmed £1.6 billion for 100,000 affordable homes to rent. The noble Lord, Lord Best, questions whether this is enough. Because it is grant-funded, it is a minimum position. We would expect councils and developers to do more than the bare minimum.

A number of speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked whether starter homes should keep their discount in perpetuity. This would defeat the purpose: long-term restrictions may make it more difficult for the first-time buyer to sell and move on—whether to take up a new job or move to a larger home as their family grows.

Several points were made about the right to buy and high-value assets. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, those tenants who buy a starter home under right to buy should have the same freedoms as every other home owner. The existing right to buy does not include any restrictions on letting, and it would be unfair to include this restriction for housing association tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Young, also questioned the exclusion of Section 106-funded properties and right to buy. It was decided, because of the short timescale, to exclude properties built through Section 106 from the voluntary right-to-buy pilot. Aspects of the main scheme will be different. Under the voluntary deal the presumption is that housing associations will offer to sell tenants the property in which they are living, and we would expect them to do so in the majority of cases. We are working with the sector on the detailed implementation of the main scheme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asked about housing associations selling off property to avoid the right to buy. The Government are fully compensating housing associations for the right-to-buy discount, based on open-market value, and the housing association will keep the full receipts of the sale, so there is really no financial benefit to a housing association in selling off empty properties to avoid the right to buy.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Could I be clear? The Minister said that the Government are fully compensating the housing associations. It is the local authorities that are compensating the housing associations.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that it is the Government who will fully compensate the housing associations.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Adebowale and Lord Stoneham, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, are concerned about the wider implications of the Bill and the future of social housing, especially when local authorities are selling their high-value assets. We are considering a number of types of housing that could be excluded when that is taken into account, and cases where housing will not be considered to have become vacant. We are engaging widely, and I will make sure that the points raised here are taken into account. I would also be happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, to discuss housing co-ops in particular.

In addition, the Government are committed to using a portion of the receipts to fund the building of additional homes. The Secretary of State and the local authority can enter into an agreement for the local authority to retain part of its receipts to lead on the delivery of more homes that meet housing need.

Members were also concerned about high-value assets forcing people out of their areas. The aim is not to force people out of homes. This will apply to a property only when it becomes vacant. The Government support the ambitions of social tenants to make the move into home ownership but, equally, it cannot be right that some social tenants on higher incomes are benefiting from lower rents when those renting privately do not. Social housing for rent must primarily be focused on those in real housing need who are on lower incomes.

We recognise that rent rises must be affordable and protect work incentives. That is why we have consulted on proposals to introduce gradual rent rises in relation to income, to help ensure that the extra rental costs are manageable. There is broad support for our proposal for a taper and we will consider the responses carefully.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the use of a formula and the loss of family properties. The data that we are collecting will inform the high-value threshold, and for local authorities the use of a threshold to determine payments will give greater certainty and predictability, which will help them to manage their finances better. It will also provide greater flexibility for local authorities to choose what properties they sell in order to make the payments.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, who I commend for the work he described earlier on right to buy all those years ago, asked about the portable discount. Under the terms of the voluntary agreement, where a housing association exercises a discretion not to sell a property, the association would offer tenants the opportunity to use their discount to buy an alternative home from their own or another association’s stock. Receipts from sales under the new scheme, including the government grant to cover the cost of the discount, will generate considerable income for associations to reinvest in new supply, with an additional home being provided for every home sold. To allow the portable discount to be used on properties in the open market loses that income to the sector, limiting the ability of housing associations to deliver new supply. We are currently working with the sector to finalise how the portable discount might work.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Andrews, asked questions about planning. The decision to grant planning permission in principle will be locally driven where a choice is made to allocate land for housing-led development in a local plan, neighbourhood plan and new brownfield register. This will promote plan-led development and ensure that decisions take place within a framework that includes the engagement of communities and others, as well as consideration of development against local and national policy, including important matters such as heritage and, of course, flooding. Allowing permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development will allow it to accommodate other uses that are compatible with residential areas such as retail, social and community uses. This will help to deliver the mixed and balanced communities that we want to see. However, the Government were clear in the other place that there is no intention to allow permission in principle to be granted for fracking.

The LGA report referred to by my noble friend Lady Eaton presents a narrow picture of the build out as it only covers homes on major sites—that is, those with 10 units or more—and therefore overstates the average time to complete all work on a site. However, I agree that ensuring that where permission is given for new homes, building them out without delay is a very important part of the equation, and this includes ensuring that the local planning authorities play their part by discharging conditions as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, suggested that women would be disproportionately affected by our planning policies, and we will of course continue to keep them under review as, for example, we finalise the new planning policy following the closure of the consultation next month.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans suggested that the Bill has got rid of the need for considering Gypsy and Traveller needs. The Bill does not remove the need to assess their accommodation needs. The proposed changes to the legislation make it clear that the needs of all those who reside in the district must be taken into account, and that includes Gypsies and Travellers. The provision of caravan sites and moorings for houseboats are considered under the duty to assess housing needs in the Housing Act 1985.

I think that I had better move on to the question of the lack of information on secondary legislation. Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not name-check everyone because so many of them raised the issue. I understand the concerns of noble Lords about the number of secondary legislation proposals proposed by the Bill. I will do my best to provide as much information as possible as the Bill progresses. I have discussed this with a number of noble Lords in meetings. I want to ensure that everybody has the information they need to understand the implications of the measures in the Bill and I hope to explain as much as I can during Committee. Each one of the measures will be different and there is much detail that is still to be sorted, as well as data to be collected and analysed and stakeholders that we need to work with. We are consulting widely and we will be sharing the details as they emerge. We want to make sure that we get it right. We do not want to rush into secondary legislation before working with those who will make all this work on the ground. An example will be many of the planning measures where we plan to consult shortly on the details that will be in the secondary legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about getting on with the data analysis to inform the formula for high-value assets. As she says, we are making good progress on collecting the data and we need to get the formula right. However, there is still some way to go. I will keep the House informed as we make progress. We will bring forward the detail that Peers want as soon as we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about sink estates. We know that the worst estates have huge potential to be revived so that they become thriving communities once more. That is why we are so determined to kick-start work which would benefit the lives of people by providing high-quality homes.

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes raised rogue landlords and sending them underground, and that we need better enforcement. As well as the clauses on banning orders which will ensure that rogue landlords are unable to continue letting out properties, the Bill ensures that local authorities’ powers of enforcement against those who are committing housing offences are greatly strengthened. Some of this is already going on, particularly in London boroughs. Clause 117 and Schedule 9 will enable local authorities to impose a civil penalty of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution and enable provisions which will extend the availability of rent repayment orders.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the right to buy—replacements and figures. There is a rolling three-year deadline for local authorities to deliver one-for-one replacements. So far, they have delivered well within the sales profile. By March 2013, there had been 3,054 additional sales and by September 2015, there had been 4,117 starts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about planning competition. I believe that there is an appetite for greater competition in the planning system, although I must point out—a couple of noble Lords touched on this—that the decisions remain with the local planning authorities. We anticipate that a number of ambitious and high-performing local authorities will also want to compete to process planning applications in other areas.

The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Tope, raised issues on electrical safety in the private sector. The Government are committed to protecting tenants and have agreed to carry out the necessary research to understand what, if any, legislative changes regarding electrical safety checks should be introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, raised the idea that the Bill should ensure that rented properties are fit for human habitation. Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality, unsafe accommodation, and we expect them to use them.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Cameron, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester were concerned about the level at which people are classed as having a high income. The issue is whether people on those household incomes, which are above the average median wage of £26,000 a year, should automatically benefit from a lower rent than people in comparable private rented housing. Our view is that it is not fair for the taxpayer and that it is an issue that should be tackled. It is also important to recognise that social housing should be prioritised to those in genuine need. There will be households on lower incomes that are more in need of social housing for rent. We do not want to damage work incentives and that is why we are proposing a taper, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That would see rents rise gradually in relation to income. Doing so will ensure that households are incentivised to accept higher-paid work so that they see a range of benefits from that income.

The noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked how income will be assessed. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about ensuring that vulnerable tenants are protected. We will ensure that the implementation of “pay to stay” is fair for tenants as part of our ongoing engagement with local authorities.

I hope that noble Lords will indulge me, given the huge number of questions, for another couple of minutes. If any noble Lord objects, please let them speak now.

On lifetime tenancy, many Members, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, suggested that reviews of social tenancies would place undue pressures on local authorities. Keeping that under review should already be part of good tenancy management, but in any case, we expect that savings over the long term are likely to outweigh any additional costs from reviewing tenancies.

Many noble Lords talked about rural impacts. We understand the pressures faced by the rural community, which are many and complex. The Bill allows for certain types of housing to be excluded from being sold when vacant. We will set out our thinking on this in due course. Under the voluntary agreement on right to buy, housing associations will have the discretion not to sell homes in rural areas. We are consulting on planning reforms to allow starter homes on rural exception sites, to help villages thrive. This includes an option to retain local connection tests. We want rural exception sites to continue to deliver housing for rural communities.

On flooding, I welcome my noble friend Lord Liverpool’s comments on local plans. I know that my noble friend Lord Deben, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will also keep a close eye on this. Planning guidance is clear, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether adapted housing under regeneration schemes will be excluded under the high-value asset sales. Excluded housing will be set out—noble Lords will groan now—in secondary legislation. The department is engaging widely with local authorities and other stakeholders. No decisions have been made yet on the types of housing that will be excluded or cases where housing would not be considered as becoming vacant. As part of our process of updating data on local authority stock, we are collecting information on the purpose of the stock held to understand more about the types of housing that local authorities own, which will inform decisions on housing that will be excluded.

I conclude with the noble Lord, Lord Best, because he might be thinking that I am ignoring him. The noble Lord made a wide-ranging contribution with a promise of much more to come, which I look forward to, given his wealth of expertise. I share his view that we need houses both to rent and to buy, which is why the package we announced in the spending review includes that significant support of £1.6 billion for 100,000 rented homes. We also committed £4.1 billion for 135,000 shared ownership homes, allowing people to buy a share if they cannot move straight to purchasing outright.

The Bill needs to be seen as part of our wider crusade to get more homes built for all our communities with a planning system that delivers, while managing the homes we already have fairly. I know that we share this ambition to address the housing needs of the country, even if our views may differ around the edges on how to get there. I look forward to working with all noble Lords who have spoken today and other interested Peers as we take the Bill through the House. I beg to move.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I expect a very quick timescale, given that some devolution deals have already been done. Time would be of the essence in getting these matters through, so I would expect the consultation process and the regulations to be dealt with fairly quickly. That is imperative, given that devolution deals have been done with different places. I hope that that is good enough for him.

The noble Lord also asked me about Amendment 34. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the amendment makes clear exactly what procedures can be fast-tracked. These include changes to electoral arrangements but the Boundary Commission’s responsibilities remain unchanged. I think we went through that yesterday but I am very happy to confirm that, as it is a very important point.

The noble Lord also asked me whether the Government are trying to reorganise local government. The answer is no. We are here to assist where local government wants to reorganise itself in terms of unitarisation. He also asked whether we are taking a Henry Ford approach. I hope that Cornwall shows that we are not. It will be up to local authorities to come forward with their proposals for their areas in due course.

I have been passed a note which says that—if I can read the writing—regarding business rates, “future legislation” means primary legislation, which we will bring forward as parliamentary time allows. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords in all the questions that they have raised.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Perhaps the noble Baroness could say a bit more. Regarding my noble friend’s Amendment 31C, I agree that we should move forward on a basis of consensus. I also agree that no council should have a veto. I accept that entirely, as it would just stop things happening. However, that is why my noble friend’s amendment says that either council may make a referral to the Secretary of State. His intention is to avoid that happening; equally, his intention is to get consensus where we can. Can she say why she will not accept that amendment?

Fire and Rescue Service: Thomas Review

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 11th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am certainly very happy to meet the noble Baroness, but she may like to meet my noble friend Lord Bates—or perhaps she can meet both of us.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to our brave men and women in the fire service. We have all seen their bravery during the recent floods, along with that of our other emergency services and the Armed Forces. The Government have had this report since February 2015 and the Fire Minister made reference to it in a speech to the LGA in March. Can the Minister give more of an answer to the House—her response was not very satisfactory—and explain why the Government have sat on this report for 11 months?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said, the Government will be deliberating on the report. The themes of the review are already in the public domain and we will respond in due course. I echo the noble Lord’s words about the bravery of our fire and rescue services, and in fact all the emergency services, over the Christmas period. Certainly in the areas that I visited following the flooding, their services have been absolutely exemplary.

Housing: Office Conversions

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes a very good point. My answer to the noble Lord’s first question is that it varies a lot across the country. In the north-west, where both I and the noble Lord live, there is a demand to build housing within town centres in an attempt to revitalise them. However, there is also a demand for housing nationwide; where that situation is distorted and reversed and office space is being lost, an Article 4 direction can be made.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected councillor in Lewisham, south London. For this great capital city to thrive, we need housing available to rent or buy for people on a wide variety of incomes who do all the jobs that need doing in the capital. Does the noble Baroness agree with the Housing Minister, Mr Brandon Lewis, when he said yesterday that Londoners had to make a judgment call about whether they could afford to live in the capital?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we all have to make a judgment call on whether we can afford to live in the capital. It is certainly true that London has the highest house prices in the country. This Government’s aim is to provide more houses— 1 million new homes by 2020—so that the demand is met overall and people have somewhere to live.

Housing: London

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 26th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to address the shortage of housing in London.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, responsibility for housing in London has been devolved to the Mayor and the GLA, in line with this Government’s commitment to give local areas control over their development and growth. We work closely with London Councils and the GLA on increasing housing supply in London. Total funding to the GLA for affordable housing in London across 2015 to 2018 is nearly £1.5 billion, delivering 43,000 affordable homes under the programme.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, in the last five years the Government have failed to tackle the housing crisis in London: the number of people owning their own home in the capital is now below 50%; the number of private renters has gone up by 800,000; and there are the lowest levels of peacetime housebuilding since the 1920s and a 79% increase in rough sleepers. When are the Government going to take some real action to deal with the crisis? They have had five years to deal with it so far. Their record is poor. Urgent action is needed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot agree with that statement. More council housing has been built since 2010 than in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. There have been more council housing starts in London than in the 13 years of a Labour Government, and there have been 800,000 more homes built in England since 2009—260,000 affordable homes delivered since 2010.

Affordable Housing in Rural Communities

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 15th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this timely debate. I also pay tribute to the church and the work it has done in providing rural housing, and to all the other landlords who have done the same thing philanthropically to preserve and sustain their local communities. Perhaps I could start with the context; then, I am very keen to answer noble Lords’ specific questions.

In 2010 we inherited the lowest peacetime rate of housebuilding since the 1920s, a dysfunctional planning system and levels of housebuilding that were tumbling. Today, we are growing faster than any other major advanced economy and our job creation is the envy of the developed world. Now, we are meeting the aspirations of people to own their own homes.

On affordable rural housing, this Government believe that meeting the housing needs of rural communities is very important: since 2010, more than 85,000 affordable homes have been delivered in rural local authorities in England. Some communities have gone over and above their commitments. I pay tribute at this point to Willersey in Gloucestershire, which has done just this. But we know that more are needed and we are committed to delivering 275,000 affordable homes over this Parliament in rural and urban areas. The 2015 to 2018 affordable homes prospectus makes it clear that where a particular scheme, for example in a rural location, involves higher than average costs, the HCA will wherever possible seek to take account of such genuine comparators. Our intention is that bidders will not be systematically disadvantaged where there are some higher costs or higher grant bids within their proposed programme.

Local authorities should plan to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites. They should also consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate provision of significant additional affordable housing. Through the Rural Productivity Plan, we will review the planning and regulatory constraints facing rural businesses, including how permitted development rights can better support the provision of new homes, jobs and innovation.

The Government are committed to reforming the housing market and boosting the supply of much-needed housing. Housebuilding starts have more than doubled since 2009 and planning permission was granted for 242,000 houses in the year to June 2015. Almost 800,000 new homes have been delivered in England since 2009. Completions are up and housing starts are at their highest annual level since 2007. More than 260,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2010 and, with nearly 186,000 affordable builds, we have exceeded our 2011-15 target by 16,000. Over this Parliament, we will ensure the fastest rate of affordable housebuilding in the last 20 years, with 275,000 new affordable homes by 2020.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked whether there should be a wider definition of rural. The Government would be willing to revisit the definition if evidence can be provided that this would convincingly increase new housing supply. He also made the point that many new starter homes will not be affordable to people in rural areas. A number of noble Lords also made the point that starter homes may be a threat to rural affordable housing supply. Starter homes are a new form of low-cost house ownership to help young first-time buyers on to the property ladder, including in rural areas. The definition of affordable housing will be expanded to include starter homes, and a consultation on that will take place shortly.

The August 2015 rural productivity plan announced that starter homes will be encouraged through the use of rural exception sites to help villages thrive. Young first-time buyers face significant affordability pressures in many rural areas, so we want the development of starter homes to make a significant contribution to housebuilding in those areas.

The right reverend Prelate also asked what safeguards are in place to ensure one-for-one replacements locally. Under the agreement with the National Housing Federation, there is a clear commitment to all properties sold being replaced with an additional home. Rural areas will benefit from that and there is a clear exemption for rural housing under the agreement, whereby housing associations can decide not to sell those homes.

Both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about situations where landlords donate land and want it kept for the specific purposes for which they originally intended it. The agreement we have in place includes examples of types of property that associations may decide they do not want to sell to the tenant, including supported housing, historic legacy stock and homes in rural areas. It also includes rural properties that are protected by clear restrictive covenants in existing residence contracts. That should give a good basis for housing associations to engage with local landowners and their wishes on the issue.

The right reverend Prelate also asked what the Government will do to deliver affordable rented accommodation in rural areas. That is a very good point. Affordable rent was introduced in 2011, and rents can be set at 80% of local market rents. More than 260,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2010, as I said, of which 85,000 have been provided in England in 2014-15. I cannot provide more specific figures because of the spending review.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about community land trusts being excluded. They are included in the agreement and are one category where properties can be exempted. She does not look convinced, but perhaps I can meet her afterwards.

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked for the definition of affordable housing. It is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The NPPF defines it as:

“Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision”.

The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 defines social housing as “low cost rental accommodation” and “low cost home ownership accommodation”. In the Act, a low-cost rent is simply defined as below market rate. Low-cost home ownership is defined by availability for occupation on a shared ownership or equity percentage basis.

My noble friend also asked about sinking funds. Registered providers are generally required to make provision for a sinking fund, for example to meet future costs in shared ownership developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about landowners selling land above market price. It has to be at discount of market price, otherwise they will not qualify. He also asked about the 10 units limit on Section 106 orders—we discussed this last night—the small sites threshold. A judgment was issued on 31 July this year quashing the Section 106 small sites threshold. Increasing the number of homes is a top priority, and our policy was aimed at securing it by helping small builders and developers to contribute. Section 106 requirements can be very burdensome and prevent developments actually being built. We now have permission to appeal against the judge’s decision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that this was being forced through and was a waste of money. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to extend right to buy, and we are very pleased that the sector has come forward with a voluntary offer, rather than needing to legislate. The policy will boost not only new home ownership but supply through replacement.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked about the impact of high-value council sales in rural areas. We are legislating to require local authorities to pay the Secretary of State a sum in line with the anticipated receipt from the sale of high-value council housing. Councils will be able to retain some of that fund to support new housebuilding in their area.

The noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Kennedy, talked about house prices versus wages in rural areas. It is a particular problem in rural areas; we recognise that there can be that gap. That is why we allocated £1.4 billion through the 2015-18 affordable homes programme in both rural and non-rural areas.

In conclusion, we want to support people who aspire to buy their own homes, and to support young families who sign up for a starter home. As much as possible, we want to support their aspirations by building homes in every part of this country.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Obviously, I asked a number of questions that the noble Baroness has not responded to. I assume she will write to me and perhaps place a copy in the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was about to conclude by saying that I recognise I have not covered everybody’s points, and I will write to them in due course.

Northern Powerhouse: Lancashire

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord about the Blackburn to Bolton rail corridor, which will make a huge difference, the Burnley to Pendle growth corridor and the work done on the M65, which is a particular congestion point off the M6. Maintenance on the Burnley Centenary Way viaduct is under way, and there is the East Lancs cycle network for those who are interested in cycling. There is also the restart to the electrification of the trans-Pennine rail network and the Todmorden curve, for which I campaigned many years ago and am glad to see is now up and running.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a locally elected councillor. Why are the Government so wedded to a piecemeal, one-at-a-time approach instead of putting together a coherent strategy for devolution of power across England that takes account of all communities, including rural areas and small towns, as recommended by Mr Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee in the other place?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Bill that is currently going through the other place and has just gone through this House is a framework Bill which allows bespoke devolution deals to take place in areas according to local need and their plans for growth. To prescribe would be the wrong way forward for government. I do not agree with the noble Lord’s point about the piecemeal nature of this approach. The north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire are doing very well economically—in fact, Yorkshire has created more jobs than the whole of France.

Right to Buy: Housing Associations

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 12th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question from the other place. I declare an interest as an elected member of Lewisham Borough Council. The extension of the right to buy to housing associations funded by the forced sale of council homes will mean fewer affordable homes, and we will oppose that. I am sure the noble Baroness will have seen the figures from Shelter estimating that up to 113,000 council homes could be sold to pay for this policy. Can she tell the House more about the guarantee of like-for-like replacement that she referred to? Is that both for housing association and council homes?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, councils should effectively and efficiently use their resources. Where there is an increased need for housing across the country, it makes no sense for a local authority to keep high-value, vacant council houses when it could sell them to fund the building of new homes that will reflect its local housing need and increase overall housing supply. We want to work with both local authorities and local associations to ensure this one-for-one additional housing.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 75 is not one which we on these Benches can support. I declare an interest as an elected local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

Although this amendment is concerned with elections to local councils in England, I mentioned in Committee that we had a referendum in 2011 on changing the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. That was wholly rejected and I have seen nothing following on from that result, or anything that has happened subsequently, which leads me to believe that the country wants to change the voting system for any elections. I also mentioned that we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess in recent years. We have managed to heap on voters a whole plethora of voting systems and that is not a good thing to do. I accept that, where a proportional system has been chosen, it should remain. However, I would like to see us use fewer systems.

I also referred to the fact that I thought that one of the worst systems was the supplementary vote system. I have observed many counts where people have only put a cross in the second column, which means that their vote is discounted. Therefore, I would like to see a reduction in the number of systems being used, and we certainly cannot support the amendment tonight.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this amendment is about the voting system for local government elections in England and Wales. Like Amendment 73, it would introduce a fundamental change to these. As I explained in the case of the earlier amendment, we are clear that issues such as this need to be considered in a far wider context than this Bill. Even in terms of timescale, when STV was introduced in Scotland, the review of the 32 local authorities took two years, and clearly in England that would take much longer. Notwithstanding any of the arguments for or against the amendment, as I said in the previous amendment, this is not the Bill to be talking about changes to the franchise. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, the people of this country said no to the alternative vote in 2011—I was one of the people who campaigned against it. Again, it is not the place of an unelected House to propose changes like this. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I am an elected member of Lewisham Council in south London. This has been an interesting debate but changing the voting system to a form of PR is not something that I am in favour of, although this would be only for the election of councillors in England.

In 2011, we did of course have a referendum on moving to a new system for elections to the House of Commons. The system put forward was AV. I know that that is not a proportional system but it was the system agreed by the then coalition Government, put to a referendum of the voters of the United Kingdom and rejected. There is nothing that I have heard in this debate or elsewhere that makes me think there has been a change in the heart of the voters in England and that what people want is to elect their councillors by single transferable vote, having stuck with first past the post elections to Westminster only three years ago. I did, however, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, when he talked of looking at governance structures from time to time. I think that that is right. That does not take me down the road of moving to single transferable votes for the election of councillors.

There are issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to, about the number of voting systems that we use to elect people to various public bodies, positions and Parliaments in the United Kingdom. Where a body is elected by a proportional system, it should remain a proportional system, but I would like to reduce the number of systems we use. It is very confusing for the voter to elect people when we are using, at least, first past the post, single transferable vote, closed list systems, top-up lists and the supplementary vote. Supplementary vote is one of the worst voting systems we use. I have been to many counts where the supplementary vote system was used. There are often a considerable number of spoilt ballot papers because people put the X in the second column instead of the first column so the vote is completely discarded, which is a bad thing. I do not think that these people intend to spoil their ballot papers; it is just that they have not understood that they need to put an X in the first column and then one in the second column as well.

Could the noble Baroness in her response make reference to the myriad voting systems we now have in the United Kingdom and how that could be a little less confusing for the voter? I am sure that from the Dispatch Box we are all agreed that changing the system for the election of councillors in England is not something that either of us supports. Nor is there evidence that it is something that the public want. At this stage, there is no need to move down that road.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we debated this previously in earlier debates. Amendment 47 would amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide that all local elections in England and Wales would be by single transferable vote.

For the single transferable vote system to function effectively, multi-member electoral areas would be required. As many existing electoral areas in England have only one councillor representing them—for example, nearly all county councils—it would require a review of local government electoral areas in England by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. It could therefore not be introduced, even if it were desirable, within any short timescale. It would also cost more and take longer to achieve a result because of the more complicated count processes.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me to list the myriad electoral systems. The Mayor of London is elected by the supplementary vote system. European elections use the d’Hondt system of PR and local government is first past the post. That is three that I can name; I am sure that there are more. But I hope that on the basis of this short debate, the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the Scottish referendum and debate was unique, certainly in my lifetime, in engaging the public in the way it did. Participation in that election by people from all age groups, including 16 and 17 year-olds, was like nothing we have ever seen before. We can all look at it, wonder why we do not engage better with people from all age groups and reflect upon it. Amendment 48 would change the franchise for those entitled to vote in local elections in England and Wales to include 16 and 17 year-olds. As we have discussed, the Bill provides that the franchise for electing mayors for a mayoral combined authority is the same as that for all local elections in England, where the voting age is 18.

More broadly, of course, the voting age for parliamentary elections is set at 18, and beyond that the voting age in most democracies, including most member states in the EU, is also 18. Only Austria in the EU allows voting for 16 year-olds. We have heard the argument about the franchise in Scotland, but this was decided in Scotland, as is its devolved right, just as it is right that decisions about the franchise for elections that take place in England should be decided by this Parliament. I am sorry to be a party pooper at this time of night, but the Government have no plans to lower the minimum voting age and I am clear that the Bill is not the place to take steps to change the arrangements for local elections. I am sure that even proponents of lowering the voting age to 16 agree that, were it to happen, it should be only following detailed debate.

I have not read the report on IER but I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about EROs engaging in getting people in general registered to vote, and certainly those younger age groups. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am pleased about the Minister’s final remarks, because I think the drop is catastrophic: 47% have dropped out in just over a year and that collapse is a consequence of IER. We have to deal with that; it is catastrophic.

Business Rates: High Streets

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, a report by the distressed town centre property task force acknowledged that the UK has too much retail space. Clearly, we also have a huge demand for housing. Houses in town centres can help to revitalise our high streets for both the daytime and the evening economy, making them much more vibrant and safe places to be.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected member of Lewisham Council. Our high streets are in crisis. Recent figures show that 16 shops a day are closing in our town centres. When will the Government give local authorities real powers through planning and other processes to enable our high streets to have the variety of shops that local communities need and to make them more sustainable?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in fact, vacancy rates were down in the second half of 2014 compared with February 2012, although I accept that there will be some regional variations in that. As I said in answer to a previous question, retail sales were up in December 2014 compared with December 2013, and click and collect is becoming very popular. The Government have outlined a number of measures, many of which are being implemented, on planning, clamping down on the use of CCTV in parking enforcement, help with employers’ national insurance contributions and corporation tax. Corporation tax will be down to 20% by April 2015. That is a reduction of 8% since 2010, making us one of the countries with the lowest corporation tax in the G20, and by far the lowest in the G7, and therefore making our high streets a good place to do business.