Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 118H, 118K and 118L. I say to the Minister at the outset that we totally support what the Government seek to achieve here. We appreciate that this is not a drugs amendment, it is a road safety measure, but the Minister will have heard from the comments already made that there is support for the Government’s intention but also some concerns about how it would operate in practice against those who are not the legislation’s targets. Drug-driving is a problem that we are all incredibly keen to see addressed. I refer to a case that the Minister will know well, of 14 year-old Lillian Groves, who was run over and killed by a driver who had taken drugs. This illustrates the importance of ensuring that the police have every tool available to tackle those who take illegal drugs and then drive, creating a danger to themselves and others. My concerns are not about the principle of what the Government seek to achieve, but—as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the other noble Baronesses have said—its implementation. We need to ensure that the legislation hits the right target and does not affect the innocent on prescribed medication. We have to get it right.
I thank the Minister for the briefings that he has provided and for the opportunity to meet him and his officials. I hope he can say enough today to satisfy us that the drafting of these clauses will not unnecessarily impact on those whom it is not intended to affect. The amendments I have put forward largely replicate those tabled in Committee and seek to strengthen the defence for individuals on prescription drugs who, through a simple error and no fault of their own, have been found above a certain limit. Amendment 118H would delete the existing new Section 5A(3)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, which requires individuals on prescription medication to “show that” they took the prescribed drug in accordance with any and all instructions, both from the doctor and manufacturer. There are serious concerns that requiring positive proof that the individual complied with all advice is pretty onerous. Instead we propose Amendment 118K, which would mean that individuals could not use their prescription as a defence if it was proved that they had taken the dosage knowingly —the point made by the noble Baroness—contrary to any advice given by a doctor or supplier. That additional wording in brackets picks up on the points about manufacturer’s instructions being required to be considered as part of the prescriber’s or supplier’s advice, rather than placing the burden on the patient to read and understand all and any such instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made the same point. We share his concern about how fair it is for patients on long-term pain medication to find themselves in such a situation and having to show that they have complied with absolutely every medical requirement.
We are worried that we risk criminalising individuals on medication on the basis of a technicality, simply for failing to correctly interpret an element of the patient information leaflet. It could be a slight, insignificant deviation from the instructions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the point about the timing of when a medication could be taken. What if the advice from a doctor differs from that on the manufacturer’s small print? Under the proposed new subsection (4)(a), patients would have to have done something positive, contrary to the instructions they had received, rather than have to positively prove that they acted in accordance with advice. It changes the emphasis of the proof.
New subsection (4) also focuses on what is probably the main medical aspect of the period when the body is getting used to the prescribed drug in the system. This has been mentioned by other noble Lords. Deleting new subsection (3)(b) and the use solely of the caveat in new subsection (4) then fits more appropriately with the evidential requirements of new subsection (5). Patients would be able to show that they have a prescription. They could take a copy of it or carry a letter from the prescriber. Evidence could be produced at a police station. However, the evidential burden of new subsection (3)(b) on patients if they had to “show that” they followed any and all instructions would be considerable. Clearly we are not seeking to protect anyone who is unfit to drive, but although the Government intend this new offence to mirror drink-driving limit offences, taking prescription medication that would otherwise be illegal does not automatically make someone unfit to drive; I am thinking specifically about pain medication.
As an example of why I am concerned, and to take what could happen to somebody sequentially, if an individual on medication has perhaps been rear-ended through no fault of their own, the police would arrive and, currently, breathalyse both drivers. Under the new legislation, they would “drugalyse”, or drug test, both drivers. The test might indicate that they are over the limit, but it does not tell the officer undertaking the test how far over the limit they are. So what would happen next to that individual? If they say that they have a prescription for the medication they are taking but do not have the prescription with them, how can they prove that they have taken medication in accordance with medical advice and not taken illegal drugs? Would they be taken to the police station, where obviously at some point they would be able to prove that they have a prescription? That would clearly be an inconvenience and could be particularly distressing. We do not want to reach a situation where individuals are deterred from taking their medication—again I am thinking specifically about long-term pain relief—because some individuals would be more of a hazard without their pain-relief medication than if they were on it.
The Home Office has been developing roadside “drugalyser” tests for the past 10 years. Without these, the individual would have to be taken to a police station for testing. When do the Government expect roadside drug tests to be available to the police? Do the Government intend to implement the new offence before roadside drug tests are available? How often would they expect the test to be used? Considering their high cost, I presume that the police would undertake a breathalyser test first. How often would the Government expect roadside drug tests to be used in the same cases as a breathalyser? Also, looking through the information that has been supplied, any assessment of the proportion of cases in which the Government expect to find individuals below the alcohol limit but above the limit for a certain concentration of controlled substance was missing.
Despite the good intentions—which we support—what concerns me is that the details of how it will work in practice have not been worked through for those on prescription medication. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the letter from the chair of the drug-driving panel, Dr Kim Wolff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has also referred to. However, I am extremely disappointed that the expert panel has not been able to publish its interim report before this stage of the Bill, though I think Ministers indicated we would be able to get it. Clearly, the levels that the panel is likely to recommend—particularly in the case of prescribed drugs—and the rationale behind the recommendations would have been a huge help in our deliberations today. They may have clarified a number of the issues that I and other noble Lords have raised. What is encouraging is Dr Wolff’s assurance in her letter that:
“In considering what limits should be set for common prescription medication, the Panel has looked at normal therapeutic ranges used in prescriptions, compared to those found in addicts misusing medicines”.
In relation to morphine, she said that the panel,
“are considering a limit that is significantly above the average concentrations of morphine in blood found in cancer patients receiving long-term steady-state doses of morphine”.
However, Dr Wolff also states that the panel’s primary consideration is,
“clear scientific evidence of risk of road traffic accidents”,
and that in the case of, for instance, prescribed benzodiazepine drugs:
“risk is especially high during the first four weeks of treatment and is particularly increased when benzodiazepines are consumed in combination with alcohol”.
Here, Dr Wolff outlines the inherent difficulties in setting a blanket limit in the case of medicated drugs, because tolerance can change over time and is subject to variation by other factors. I suspect that the Minister will be unable to answer at this stage whether the panel, on the evidence so far, will set a limit for benzodiazepine much lower than the average level for someone on long-term drug use, because of the increased risk in the first four weeks of medication. However, that is an important consideration in the implementation of these clauses.
Much of how this will be implemented will hang on the recommendations that the panel makes, which we do not have available. How will it factor in the effects of mixing drugs with alcohol? Will it feel compelled to set the limit a lot lower than the average dosage because of the risk of increased road safety problems when the drug is mixed with alcohol—even a quantity of alcohol below the legal limit? Someone could be below the legal limit on drugs and below the legal limit of alcohol but still be a danger to themselves and other road users, because the Government’s offence does not provide—understandably, because we have not yet had the report of the panel—for a combined alcohol and drug limit for certain controlled substances.
We all want all drug drivers who are a danger taken off the roads. We totally support the Government’s aims. However, we need to ensure that we are going after the right people. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances that he will look again to reassure himself and this House about the defence in this group of clauses for people on prescription medication, to ensure that it is appropriate and fair; that he will not shut the door on ensuring that the legislation hits the right note; and that he will take away the comments made today.
I hope that the Minister can answer my final question clearly. Can he confirm that the Government would not consider it appropriate for any action to be taken against those on prescribed medication, unless it is clear that their driving is impaired?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I recognise that the amendments relate to concerns about the Government’s approach to drug-driving and, in particular, how the new offence will affect drivers who take prescription or over-the-counter medicines. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her recognition of the problem. I will try as hard as I can to reassure the House that your Lordships’ fears will not materialise.
First, I emphasise that any passengers would not be screened for drugs following a vehicle being stopped by the police and the driver being tested for drugs. The noble Baroness asked me a number of very good questions, and I will answer them first, before going into detail. She asked, in effect, how much discretion a policeman has to arrest for drug-driving. Whether an officer decides to arrest and continue an investigation, including carrying out an evidential blood test, once someone has proved positive in a drug screening test, will depend on the facts of a particular case. Officers will be aware of the statutory defence of taking a specified controlled drug in accordance with medical advice and prescription.
As for the CPS, in reaching a decision as to which cases to prosecute, Crown prosecutors must take into account the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The code includes a requirement that prosecutors should swiftly stop cases where the public interest clearly does not require prosecution. I will return to that in a moment.
The noble Baroness also asked me about publication of the expert panel report. The expert panel is independent of government. It is important that it takes the time that it needs. Advising on which drugs the new offence should cover and on limits to set for driving purposes are complicated issues which require careful consideration. The expert panel has considered a wide range of drugs and has needed to reconcile the available evidence from the UK and abroad. This means that it has taken longer than we anticipated for the panel to report. The Government intend to publish a copy of the report of the expert panel on drug-driving as soon as we are able after the report is finalised. Of course, we will not proceed further with the secondary legislation until we have the expert panel’s report.
The noble Baroness also asked me about roadside drug tests. The Government expect roadside drug test equipment to be available in 2014, when we anticipate bringing the new offence into force. We would expect breath tests to be conducted first, as they are quicker and easier. We cannot speculate on how many tests would be taken, as that is an operational matter for the police.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I just want the noble Earl to clarify the point about the instructions. Proposed new Section 5A(3)(b) says that D, the person who has been arrested,
“took the drug in accordance with any directions given by the person by whom the drug was prescribed or supplied, and with any accompanying instructions (so far as consistent with any such directions) given by the manufacturer or distributor of the drug”.
Is the Minister absolutely clear in his comments today that the doctor’s instructions with the drugs would always override any manufacturer’s instructions and that that would be a defence in law?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, as I understand it, the doctor’s instructions will trump the leaflet. If I am wrong on that I will write. Also, the leaflet normally refers to the doctor’s advice so the leaflet would give the trumping authority to the doctor.
The medical defence places what is known as an “evidential” burden on a person accused of committing the offence. This means that the accused person must simply put forward enough evidence to “raise an issue” regarding the defence that is worth consideration by the court, following which it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defence cannot be relied on.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee are concerned that a patient who inadvertently deviates slightly from the recommended dosage might be unable to rely on the medical defence. I want to reassure the House that the Government and the independent panel will take into account the normal therapeutic ranges for medication when considering what limits should be set for drugs. This will reduce the risk of patients who take medical drugs correctly being affected by this legislation. The panel will be well aware of the risks pointed out by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I would also like to point out that in the terms of reference, term 6 is:
“To establish the likelihood of whether these concentrations would be exceeded through prescribed or otherwise legally obtained drugs (as distinct from illicit drugs)”.
A small minority of individuals taking long-term medication at elevated concentrations could be in excess of the specified limit for a particular drug, as was so well explained to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. In most cases such users would only come to notice if their driving is impaired—when they can be dealt with under the existing offence in Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988—or for some other reason requiring police action. Another point to note is that the Code for Crown Prosecutors specifically states that prosecutors “should swiftly stop cases”, as I have already mentioned.
Furthermore, the Government expect that the courts will take a sensible approach to the operation of the new offence. For example, a defendant seeking to rely on the medical defence may be afforded more or less leeway depending on the facts of a particular case, such as the nature of the medical advice provided, including the wording of any leaflet accompanying the medicine.
Finally, in Amendment 118GA the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has also proposed that primary legislation should include requirements for testing to be reliable and for the Government to set limits that are linked to road safety. We do not consider it necessary to set these requirements in legislation. First, the preliminary testing devices currently being developed would undergo a rigorous type approval process before being used for enforcement purposes. This type approval process is so rigorous that it is taking some time to secure approval and I have raised this issue with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State because we need this equipment in operation. However, it is vital to the integrity of our system of justice that the courts can rely on the evidence of the new equipment. Furthermore, evidentially testing using blood or urine specimens is already carried out for the enforcement of the existing drink and drug-driving offences without any express requirement for the testing to be reliable.
Secondly, we are clear that the purpose of the new offence is to improve road safety, as I have already stressed, so careful consideration will be given to the advice received from the expert panel and to the responses to the public consultation before setting any specified limits and regulations. The regulations would then need to be specifically approved by Parliament using the affirmative procedure. The new offence is intended to enable more effective law enforcement and to improve road safety by deterring drug-impaired driving and bringing more drug-impaired drivers to justice. In light of the points I have raised I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will agree to withdraw her amendment and that my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will not press their amendments. I have been asked many detailed questions. Where I have not answered them I will write, and no doubt another place will look very carefully at these provisions.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for his response. I remain completely unconvinced that there is any logic at all in differentiating between controlled and uncontrolled drugs. I would submit that the North committee, to which the Minister referred, had no awareness of the incredible flood of new substances coming into this country. It is a vast number. There were 65 new substances this year, 49 last year and 41 the year before. That changes the entire environment within which we work and Ministers may come to regret the idea that this legislation should also fail to take account of those changes.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we asked the expert panel to consider the drugs that we thought were causing a road safety problem but the last thing we said was that it should consider any other drugs that it thinks necessary.
Baroness Meacher
I know that noble Lords do not want me to take any more time because people need to move on. My only other small point is that the Minister referred to risk as being the main indicator of the need for action rather than impairment. I would suggest that the two are incredibly closely related. The importance of impairment is to avoid discrimination against certain groups and the stopping of drivers in particular communities when there may be no indication of an impairment of driving. It is those matters which we should be aware of. That said, at this stage anyway, I will withdraw the amendment although I may come back at Third Reading because we still await the outcome of the expert panel’s deliberations.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hope to be very brief on this amendment and on Amendment 118P. These amendments deal with the regulations which, as the noble Earl has assured the House, will not be proceeded with until a good deal more work is done. My first amendment would provide for a report from the Secretary of State about the,
“drug proposed to be specified and the limit proposed to be specified”,
before laying regulations. Like all other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this, I am very keen that the decision should be made on the basis of evidence. This amendment is to suggest that the evidence base should be in the public domain and easily accessed before we are asked to deal with regulations.
I said a few minutes ago that there is a huge array of drugs. I was quoting the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when I said that but, having seen that remark in Hansard, it struck me that it may be difficult to decide whether to support regulations that cover more than one drug or where there is concern about the limit applying to a particular drug. It would be very helpful to have regulations made a drug at a time so that the vote can be very clear when the matter comes before both Houses of Parliament. Following the points that have been made about the importance of controlling drug-driving, I hope that the House would be able to vote for the inclusion of a particular drug without jeopardising the inclusion of another if there is concern about one which is on a list or the limit for one which is on the list. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I would point out first that these are very important clauses and it is right that the House looks carefully at them. I know that these amendments relate to concerns around how the Government will implement the new offence. Amendment 118N proposes that the Government should be required to publish a report regarding the controlled drugs and limits to be specified in regulations before such regulations are laid before Parliament. The Government do not consider that such a requirement is needed. Clause 29 already requires the Government to consult before specifying in regulations the drugs and limits for the new offence. The Government also intend to publish a copy of the report of the expert panel on drug driving shortly. I have already provided an explanation to the House on the reasons for its delay. The consultation will set out the evidence base for specifying particular controlled drugs and limits in regulations.
Amendment 118P proposes that individual sets of regulations should be drafted for each controlled drug to be covered by the new offence. I recognise the importance of considering carefully the specified limits for each controlled drug. That is why we will consult on the drugs to be included in the offence and the limits which should be specified. It will be open to anyone to respond to that consultation and their response will be considered carefully. Drafting a new set of regulations for each controlled drug would be time-consuming for the Government to prepare and for Parliament to consider, and would be likely to involve much unnecessary repetition. It could also make it more difficult for those seeking to use the legislation since there would be multiple sets of regulations to refer to, making the relevant law unnecessarily complex.
The Government therefore believe that it would be better for all concerned for a single set of regulations to be produced following consultation. In the event that the regulations were not approved by Parliament due to the inclusion of a particular specified drug or limit, the Government would amend the regulations and lay a further draft before Parliament for approval. In the light of the points I have raised, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, for speed, I will not comment on that other than to thank the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, Amendment 1 in the first group looks at the governance of the National Crime Agency. The amendments remove responsibility for the direction and control of the National Crime Agency from the director-general. Instead, the NCA will be governed by a board with an independent chair, which will have responsibility for “strategic direction and control” of the agency.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, will noble Lords try to leave the Chamber quietly in order that we can hear the noble Baroness move her amendment?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The House has hushed immediately, such is his power of control. The point is about the governance arrangements of the National Crime Agency and the move in the direction of control from the director-general to a board. It would have an independent chair, which would have responsibility for “strategic direction and control”, and would be modelled on the existing governance structure of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Obviously, the director-general has to be responsible for the exercise of the National Crime Agency’s operational and administrative functions. However, the line of accountability would be to the NCA board, which would retain the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint and dismiss the director-general, although that would be subject to a pre-appointment hearing by Parliament. The amendments also provide for police and crime commissioners and chief constables to be represented on the board. That would formalise and facilitate that partnership, which we believe is important, between the NCA and police forces.
Having reread the Minister’s comments in Committee —from a different Minister—after the debate, I found them somewhat unsatisfactory, which is why we have brought forward this amendment today. The Government are scrapping the corporate governance structure that existed for SOCA and are instigating top-down direction from the Secretary of State, despite the fact that the new agency will be designated a non-ministerial department, unlike SOCA, which was a non-departmental government body. As the Minister will be aware, non-ministerial departments—NMDs—are, as a rule, more independent of the Government than non-departmental government bodies. According to the Standard Note in the Library of the other place on the Public Bodies Bill, a body such as an NMD would normally,
“answer directly to Parliament on issues where it has been deemed appropriate to remove executive political interference”.
The note gives the examples of Ofgem and the UK Statistics Authority. The corporate governance structures of SOCA and the NPIA provide for a board headed by an independent chair, as does that of the new Financial Conduct Authority. HMRC, which the Government cite as a model for the NCA’s new designation, has a board whose remit is to develop and approve strategy and final business plans and to advise the chief executive on key appointments. Arguably, many of the problems of the embattled UK Border Agency, which we have just been discussing, could have been avoided had there been a board sitting between the chief executive and the Secretary of State, overseeing the functioning of the organisation.
There seems to be a contrast in that the Government’s vision of the National Crime Agency does not include a similar accountability structure. I understand—and I have to say this carefully—that the director-general will chair a non-statutory board, consisting of, we think, the senior officers, who are most likely to be the heads of the five different pillars of the NCA. I am being careful about saying that we understand that to be the case because we do not have the detail, which is not yet available. I know we will come to this debate later about the framework document and its detail, but it does hamper us somewhat in our discussions about the governance arrangements of the NCA.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in Committee how important good governance is and then said, “We will set that out in the framework document”. That is for another debate, but we were promised a draft of the document and then an outline of the document to flesh out the detail. However, all we have got is a table of contents. If we look at what it says on the NCA management board, the heading is, “The NCA Management Board”, which is followed by bullet points and then sub-bullet points as follows:
“The Director General will establish and chair a Management Board … Description of the role of the Board ... Composition of the Board which will include … Ex officio members … Non-executive members”.
There is not much detail there at all.
A corporate board structure would preserve the agency’s operational independence but would retain the ultimate strategic oversight by, and accountability to, the Government. The NCA will be responsible for a huge range of operations: it has a far wider suite of functions than SOCA has. The role of the DG will be incredibly powerful and important. It seems quite crazy that there should not be an additional layer of scrutiny over the day-to-day operations, which is something that a management board, chaired by the director-general, cannot deliver or provide. The corporate board provides the other role of keeping the Home Secretary clear from direct operational control and oversight, and protects the Home Secretary from any accusation of political interference or control. Under the government model, the NCA will be governed by one all-powerful individual, the director-general, who reports directly to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary in turn will authorise the director-general’s annual plan, which sets out the operational priorities. The Home Secretary will hire and fire the DG without reference to any other body and determine what operational powers the director-general would have.
Earl Attlee
“( ) Paragraph 12(1) does not apply to a member of a special police force who is an NCA officer by virtue of a secondment.
Secondments by NCA(1) The Director General may make arrangements for NCA officers to be seconded to a UK police force.
(2) An NCA officer who is seconded to a UK police force is, whilst on secondment, under the direction and control of the chief officer of the police force (but is not a member of the police force).”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am conscious that there are a large number of amendments in this group, but they are all essentially technical and drafting in nature. In a few cases, they respond to points raised in Committee and I will deal with these first.
On the first day of Committee on 18 June, I undertook to consider an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, which sought to provide for secondments from the NCA into police forces. As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill already contains provision for secondments in the other direction, so that police officers can be seconded to the NCA. On reflection, we agree that this was an omission. Amendment 9 makes the necessary change to ensure a two-way exchange of NCA and police officers.
On that first day of Committee, my noble friend also had a probing amendment designed to test why the Bill provided for compensating only NCA specials for loss of salary as a result of an injury or death on duty. We agree that it would be helpful not to unnecessarily restrict the scope of the scheme. Amendments 10 to 13 therefore remove the limitation in respect of loss of salary. The scheme through which NCA specials would be eligible for compensation will, of course, be subject to set criteria as with all existing schemes for public servants. In reality, the calculations made under such schemes are frequently linked to loss of remuneration, so I do not want to give the impression that the scheme for NCA specials will necessarily adopt a different approach. Nor do I want to limit the scheme so that NCA specials who do not receive a salary elsewhere cannot be adequately compensated. I should add that these amendments will also make it possible for NCA specials to be covered by either the Civil Service injury benefits scheme or another stand-alone scheme to be established by the NCA, as appropriate.
Amendment 26 addresses an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Committee. The noble Lord will recall that he drew attention to the fact that there was no requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to a direction by the director-general to the chief constable of the British Transport Police to provide assistance to the National Crime Agency. It was our intention to include this consent requirement—it already applies where a direction is made to one of the 43 territorial forces—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting this gap in the Bill.
Amendment 35 closes a gap in the independent oversight arrangements. It extends the remit of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to include complaints and conduct matters arising from the exercise of asset recovery functions by NCA officers in Northern Ireland. The Bill already provides for the remit of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to extend to such matters in England and Wales.
Amendments 39 to 55 extend the power to make schemes for the transfer of staff, property, rights and liabilities. As noble Lords will be aware, the National Policing Improvement Agency is currently being wound down as a prelude to its abolition following the enactment of this Bill. Most of its staff and property will have been transferred to the successor bodies by December of this year, but there may be some residual staff, property, rights and liabilities that fall to be transferred on formal abolition of the NPIA. Schedule 8 already enables schemes to be made to make transfers from the NPIA to the National Crime Agency but, as a precaution, these amendments also enable transfers from the NPIA to the Home Office.
Amendments 52 and 56 make transitional provisions in consequence of the abolition of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the NPIA. Amendment 52 ensures that corporate liability for any criminal acts—for example, health and safety breaches—committed by SOCA or the NPIA passes to the successor body. It is also critical that in creating the National Crime Agency we do not undermine the operational integrity of things done by SOCA or other precursor bodies. In particular, we need to ensure that operations and investigations started by SOCA can and will continue to be investigated and taken through to conclusion by the National Crime Agency.
Amendment 56 has been drafted so that it captures a wide range of documents, contracts, authorisations and legal proceedings. For example, it is important that search warrants secured by SOCA under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or authorisations granted by senior SOCA officers under RIPA continue to have force at the point at which the National Crime Agency takes over from SOCA. Amendment 56 also ensures that three statutory instruments made under Part 1 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 continue in force, with the necessary adaptations, when the relevant order-making powers are repealed and replaced by equivalent powers in Part 1 of this Bill. Both measures will, as I have said, ensure a smooth transition from SOCA to the NCA.
The other amendments to Schedule 8 in this group make further consequential amendments to various enactments and subordinate legislation to repeal or replace various statutory references to SOCA. I draw the particular attention of my noble friend Lady Hamwee to Amendment 76, which makes consequential amendments to the Equality Act 2010. My noble friend asked in Committee on 20 June why paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Bill made particular provision for the application of discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland but seemingly not in other parts of the United Kingdom. These amendments to the Equality Act ensure that all NCA officers are protected by the relevant discrimination legislation in each part of the United Kingdom.
Finally, I draw the House’s attention to Amendment 62, which builds on the existing provision in the Bill enabling police officers to retain, in certain prescribed circumstances, their police pension when appointed to posts within the NCA. This amendment extends that provision to include reservists in the Police Service of Northern Ireland so that they are on an equal footing. As I indicated at the start, these amendments cover a lot of ground but I trust that your Lordships will agree that they are necessary changes to refine and build on the provisions of the Bill and to ensure a smooth transition from SOCA to the National Crime Agency. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my heart sank when I saw the enormous number of government amendments to the Bill. It lifted quite a lot when I realised that the first amendment, on secondment, and the next, on compensation for specials, were in response to points that I made at the previous stage. Then to bookend it, as it were, was the amendment to the Equality Act to which the noble Earl has just referred. I am grateful to the Government for taking those points on board.
I have two amendments to the government amendments, both of which are quite small points. They both refer to Amendment 56. The first would take out proposed new sub-paragraph (7), which provides for determination by the Secretary of State as to the two circumstances set out. I hope that the Minister is aware that my question is on whether the determination should be a matter for the court or the employment tribunal, which is likely to be the relevant tribunal. It occurs to me that the Home Secretary could be a party to the proceedings in question and it seems to deserve a little explanation as to it always being proper for the Secretary of State to determine these questions.
The second amendment is to the provision in proposed new sub-paragraph (12)(b) that deals with,
“the reference to the assumption of a third party function”,
which is limited to the three functions listed. I should be grateful if the Minister can confirm that these are the only cases. My reason for asking is that proposed new sub-paragraph (12)(a) uses the term “includes” and (12)(b) uses the term “is”. Is there no assumption of a function unless there is also a transfer of staff? That is what I read into this, but I may well be wrong.
Earl Attlee
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked who else would compensate. I referred in my speech to a number of possible schemes but I think that it would be helpful if I wrote to the noble Baroness in full detail. Some inspiration has arrived: it will be for the National Crime Agency to determine the most appropriate way of ensuring that NCA specials are covered if they were to be injured or killed on duty. That may be through the Civil Service injury benefit scheme or—if the existing rules of that scheme do not allow adequate provision for individuals who may spend the majority of their time working for another employer—through a separate, tailor-made scheme. The Civil Service scheme, of course, is managed by the Cabinet Office. If I have any further details to add I will write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness also asked how many staff are involved in these provisions. I would imagine that the numbers are fairly low. However, the provisions are precautionary in ensuring that we have sufficient flexibility to deal with any unexpected problems. Again, I will write with the details. The noble Baroness also teased me slightly about the transitional provisions and the funding thereof, but I am sure that she will accept that these are legal provisions to move from SOCA and CEOP to the new NCA.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for explaining her two amendments, Amendments 57 and 58, to government Amendment 56. Amendment 57 relates to the Secretary of State’s power to determine any questions as to whether a particular function of a precursor body has been transferred and to whom it has been transferred. My noble friend questions whether this should be a role for Ministers or for the courts or, as she explained, for an employment tribunal. Schedule 8 already provides for transfer schemes to be made by the Secretary of State and the Bill provides for the abolition of SOCA and the NPIA. Therefore, in circumstances where there is any doubt, we consider it an administrative task to determine whether a particular function has been transferred from one body to another. This is not an area where we need to involve the courts. I would add that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 adopted a similar approach in relation to the continuity of functions exercised by police authorities when such functions transferred to police and crime commissioners.
I turn now to Amendment 58. It may help if I explain the effect of proposed new paragraph 5A(12) of Schedule 8 as inserted by government Amendment 56. Sub-paragraph (12)(a) is concerned with ensuring the continuity of things done by either SOCA or the NPIA once they are abolished and a successor body takes on the corresponding functions. Sub-paragraph (12)(b) is concerned with ensuring the continuity of things done by a third party where some of the functions of that third party are being taken over by the NCA. The language used in the drafting of these two paragraphs is a reflection of the fact that the NCA will take on functions corresponding to those undertaken by SOCA and in part by the NPIA, which are to be abolished. It will also assume some of the functions of the other third party precursor bodies which continue in being. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will be content not to press her amendment.
Earl Attlee
(a) the reimbursement of”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for explaining their amendments. Clause 4 already requires that the agency’s annual plan should be published and must include the strategic priorities determined by the Home Secretary. My noble friend’s Amendment 15 proposes that, in addition to the normal publication of the strategic priorities in the annual plan, the Home Secretary should lay a report before Parliament if she should determine any variation in the NCA’s strategic priorities out of sync with the annual plan cycle. I understand that my noble friend is rightly concerned to ensure that Parliament is kept abreast of changes to the strategic priorities. However, in practice, I do not think that there is any need for this amendment. The strategic priorities are not going to be changed every other month. They will be informed by weighty assessment of the threats from serious and organised crime.
The timetable for that assessment process will be in sync with the development of the annual plan, which will itself inform the agency’s annual financial planning cycle determining how it allocates resources. The annual plan really is the right place for the strategic priorities to sit. Indeed, it is highly likely that in some years, as has been the case for SOCA, the strategic priorities will remain the same because the strategic threat picture remains consistent. The only reason for changing the priorities mid-year would be if there was a seismic shift in the organised crime landscape, such as the emergence of a totally new threat. If that were to happen, Parliament would undoubtedly already be well aware of it, and in any case the Home Secretary would, of course, notify Parliament, whether through an Oral or Written Statement or by some other established mechanism. The Bill also provides for the agency’s annual report to be laid before Parliament and for such reports to include an assessment of the extent to which the annual plan for the year has been carried out. Parliament will be well informed about the strategic priorities and how the agency is delivering against them.
I turn now to Amendments 16 and 17, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I understand the concerns expressed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the provision requiring consent to the annual plan before issuing it invites potential political interference in the operational independence of the agency. Let me first be clear on the purpose of the annual plan. It is intended as the means by which the director-general sets out how he intends to deliver the NCA’s objectives for the coming year, chief among which will be the Home Secretary’s strategic priorities. Using his operational expertise and an informed picture of the threat, he crafts a high-level plan for the National Crime Agency’s operational response to serious and organised crime over the coming year. He still, of course, has independent operational responsibility for decisions throughout the year about which individual operations to mount and how they should be conducted, as is clearly set out in Clause 4. Equally, it is crucial that he gains agreement to the annual plan from those to whom he is ultimately accountable at the national level for delivery against the strategic priorities.
Let me seek to explain why. First, let us consider the consent of the Home Secretary. I do not at all see this as political interference, as the noble Lord has suggested, but as a common-sense approach to guarantee consistency between what the Home Secretary needs the National Crime Agency to deliver, as set out in the strategic priorities, and what the director-general intends to deliver operationally in any given year. How can my right honourable friend be held truly accountable to Parliament for the agency’s performance in the fight against serious and organised crime if she has not publicly agreed the high-level direction set for the agency by the director-general in the annual plan?
Secondly, but no less importantly, let us consider the consent of the devolved Administrations. They will play an important role in shaping the fight against organised crime through consultation on the strategic priorities, ensuring that the priorities of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland feed into the overall strategic priorities that the Home Secretary will set. Given their accountability for the fight against organised crime in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it therefore follows that the devolved Administrations should rightly have a role in agreeing those aspects of the annual plan which affect Scotland and Northern Ireland, not least to ensure that the agency’s operational priorities set out in the annual plan are consistent with the serious and organised crime priorities there.
I would go so far as to say that I am a little surprised that the noble Lord would want to water down this clear and important safeguard for the devolved Administrations. We will come to discuss Northern Ireland later, but I fully expect that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice will be stressing the important safeguards that we have included in the Bill to respect the devolution settlement in discussions in Northern Ireland, with this provision being a case in point. I know how strongly the noble Lord feels about securing arrangements in Northern Ireland that meet the needs of Northern Ireland but it rather seems that this amendment undermines that end.
In summary, given the clear mechanisms already in the Bill to ensure that the strategic priorities are published regularly, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to have a further procedure for laying the strategic priorities before Parliament “in-year”. Similarly, I am clear that the requirement of consent is an important level of assurance—for the Home Secretary, for the devolved Administrations, for Parliament and for the public—that the agency is heading in the right direction to spearhead the national response to serious and organised crime. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not press their amendments at the appropriate point.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister assures us that the activities will be in sync. Circumstances indeed might change. We all know about events—sometimes with a capital E. He takes the view that there would need to be a change only if there were a seismic shift in the security threat. I appreciate that, if that were the case, everyone would know that there had been a seismic shift. However, we are talking here about priorities. Prioritising means putting things in the order in which you have regard to them, or spend money on them, or whatever, and there could be a change in priorities in much less dramatic circumstances than my noble friend describes.
I shall not pursue the issue now. I hope, of course, that we never see a seismic shift. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I hope I can persuade my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that these amendments are unnecessary. First, I will emphasise that the National Crime Agency will build on the policy of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which is not to charge law enforcement partners for tasks, assistance and facilities unless agreed with partners beforehand; for example, in exceptional circumstances.
This means that law enforcement partners will have the opportunity to draw on the National Crime Agency’s specialist services, including investigative, overseas, cyber, forensic and civil recovery assets, free of charge. The National Crime Agency will make intelligence available to partners on a routine basis, which will result in more effective deployment of partner resources. For example, the National Crime Agency’s intelligence functions will ensure that multiple partners do not investigate the same criminals or gangs without being aware of each other’s activities.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps I can use this moment to ask if—possibly not immediately, but shortly—the Whips could clarify how far we will go on this evening. I was told that we would finish after disposing of Amendment 78, but the Annunciator is talking about Amendment 107A, which may cause some of us a little panic.
Baroness Hamwee
I thank the Minister. Perhaps we should calm down, or even, “Calm down, dear”.
I do not suggest, with my amendment, that there should not be a backstop if the parties cannot reach agreement, but it is better to have a formula. My amendment does not specify the detail of the arrangement because I was doing the Government the courtesy of allowing them to put that into the framework document when they come up with it. I have heard what the noble Earl has said and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 38. In Committee I sought to understand the relationship between Schedules 6 and 7. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 provides that,
“This Part of this Act”—
I will come back to those words in a moment—
“does not authorise or require”,
disclosures which would be prohibited by the Data Protection Act or Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which are importance provisions. Among other things, I did not then, and still do not quite, understand whether the regulations that may be made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 could override primary legislation. These amendments are in response to the noble Earl’s assurances that neither of these Acts is affected. However, we still have a provision in paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 6 that the Secretary of State can make regulations regarding the disclosure of information which, under paragraph 5(6), may,
“modify any provision of Schedule 7 in its application to such a disclosure, or … disapply any such provision from such a disclosure”.
I would be grateful if, in the light of the permissive arrangement under Schedule 6, the Minister could confirm that it does not mean what it seems to when we get to paragraph 1 of Schedule 7.
My second question concerns,
“This Part of this Act”.
Can the Minister confirm that that means Part 1 of the Bill rather than Part 1 of this schedule? I think it is that way round. Given that “This Part” could refer to part of the schedule or the main part of the Bill, it would be helpful to have it confirmed. I would also like to give my thanks to those who have corrected the annunciator. My blood pressure and that of the noble Earl have come down considerably over the past five minutes as a result. We will see how many noble Lords get caught out by how swiftly we are going to move from Amendment 38 to Amendment 78.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for explaining her amendments. I am sure that she would be pleased to know that we both want the same thing, namely that nothing in Part 1 of the Bill enables the National Crime Agency or others to override or modify the application of the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to the disclosure of information.
The aim of the restrictions on disclosure set out in Schedule 7 is to ensure that any onward disclosures by NCA officers will, among other things, be subject to the existing safeguards in data protection legislation. The current wording does not provide any powers to amend existing primary legislation and therefore inserting “modify” is unnecessary. Without the provision in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, the information gateways provided for in Clause 7 could be read as being capable of overriding the provisions of the Data Protection Act and RIPA.
There is no need to extend these statutory restrictions to cover the whole Bill as we are dealing here only with the information gateways available to the National Crime Agency and its law enforcement partners, as provided for in Part 1 of the Bill. My noble friend is correct that we are referring to Part 1 of the Bill. I hope my noble friend is reassured that paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 is necessary to prevent any overriding of the important safeguards in data protection legislation and, on that basis, would agree to withdraw her amendments.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I had some interest in the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has proposed. There is some question mark over why there is discretion in this regard, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister on that. The Minister will understand my concern that there is a growing acceptance these days that everybody has access to the internet and that everything can be obtained from the internet. A large number of people in our population do not have access to the internet. More than that, as the Minister knows, the Home Office website is extraordinarily difficult to access. So I would have great reluctance in seeing a measure go through that gives discretion to the Home Secretary to publish on a website that most people cannot access most of the time.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Government are committed to publishing the NCA framework document and annual report so that all those with an interest in the work of the agency have ready access to them. That is indeed the spirit intended. The provisions on publication in Schedule 2 are directed to that end. I assure my noble friend that there is nothing sinister in the words,
“in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
They are just a recognition of the fact that it must be for the Home Secretary and the director-general, as the publishers of the framework document and annual report respectively, to determine how best to publish these documents. It is only sensible that the person publishing the document should be empowered to choose the most appropriate means of doing so.
We would expect that, in practice, both documents will most likely be released via the NCA or Home Office website. My noble friend Lord Henley says that he will shortly be writing to the noble Baroness on problems with that website. Whether it is a good use of resources also to print and publish thousands of hard copies of these documents must be left to the judgment of the Home Office or the director-general, as the case may be.
With the assurance that we want these documents to be made freely available, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall certainly do so, but I have two comments. First, I thank the Minister for confirming the point about the spirit, which I am glad to have confirmed from the Dispatch Box. On another more general point, each Bill seems to be thicker than the last. A few years ago, it would have been adequate to say, “The Secretary of State shall publish a document”. Now we have to say, “The Secretary of State shall publish a document in the manner in which she deems to be appropriate”. The officials will understand why we probe some of these words more often than just from time to time.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
I was a civil servant in the Met Office and used to visit other agencies. The variability in the publication of annual reports is quite extraordinary. A Minister visited the National Physical Laboratory and asked, “Why do you publish all these annual reports?”. I am glad to say that the Met Office continues to publish annual reports and they are still very valuable and people refer to them. Therefore, I was very surprised by the Minister’s insouciant response to this whole issue of the publication of reports. As the noble Baroness said, the relevant information is very unsatisfactory. Are the Government looking into this more broadly?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in days of old there was only one way of publishing a report, which was in hard copy. Today we can publish on the internet. We can also issue a CD and issue hard copy on a limited circulation. The provisions in the Bill take account of the various ways of releasing the information without being too prescriptive.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not think that I should take the time of the Committee by pursuing the issue but I suspect that the same question will come up more than once during the rest of this Session, as it comes up on almost every Bill. I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, readying himself to answer on this amendment. Perhaps he can answer my simple question. We listened to the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the amendments that we just considered were completely unworkable because of the use of the word “must”, and that there would be circumstances in which urgent matters and urgent operational needs had to be dealt with. Why do we now find a clause in the schedule which says that before you can get the British Transport Police to do anything, the prior approval of the Secretary of State has to be obtained?
When the noble Earl reads his note, perhaps he could also say whether a fine distinction is being drawn between a direction and a request? If so, perhaps he could also tell us what is the status of the British Transport Police Authority. Does it have no say in the matter? Is it simply for the Secretary of State? I assume that we are here talking about the Secretary of State for Transport, although I understand that there is always a fiction in our legislative process whereby Secretaries of State are indivisible. I assume that, before a direction can be given, the Secretary of State for Transport must be found, diverted from whatever consideration she or he might be giving to high-speed rail, airports or whatever, and told that there is an urgent operational direction needed by the British Transport Police. How is that really meant to work?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in responding to the amendment, I start by emphasising that in almost all cases, tasking will be voluntary, based on strong relationships and mutual co-operation, exploiting intelligence and building on existing arrangements. If not, surely something is going badly wrong, so of course such circumstances will be exceptional. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about “exceptional”, there are already strict legal tests in the Bill to prevent misuse of the directed tasking powers.
In order for the director-general of the agency to use those powers, a threefold test must be met. The performance of the task would be to assist the NCA to carry out its functions; it would need to be expedient for the directed body to perform the task; and satisfactory arrangements could not have been made, or made in time. A further safeguard is that the director-general must personally exercise the power and may delegate it in his absence only to a senior NCA officer, who would be nominated for the purpose. Directed assistance powers would also be subject to a threefold test. There would have to be a special need for that assistance; it would need to be expedient for the directed body to provide assistance; and voluntary assistance could not have been made, or made in time. In addition to that threefold test, any directed assistance to the NCA would require consent from the relevant Secretary of State. Separate arrangements are in place for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the term “Secretary of State”. He will know very well that it is a legal term.
I was asked about the difference between tasking and assistance. “Tasking” means that the responsibility for the direction and control of the operation goes to the agency being tasked. Examples are that the NCA may task a specific police force to take the lead to disrupt a human-trafficking gang that is predominantly based in that force area but impacting across the UK, or that a police force could task the NCA, subject to the NCA’s agreement, to take the direction and control in an operation to disrupt that organised crime group’s overseas financial infrastructure by using its specialist cybercapabilities and overseas liaison officers. Under assistance, resources transfer from the operational command of one organisation to another. One example is that if a specific police force is faced with a local kidnapping case, the chief officer could maintain direction and control but request some assistance from the NCA’s specialist kidnapping unit. In the case of a co-ordinated day of national action against the smuggling of rhino horns, the NCA could request assistance from UKBA specialists on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to assist with identifying seized ivory.
The powers in respect of directed tasking are a necessary and sensible backstop to enable the National Crime Agency to fulfil its role of ensuring that there is a co-ordinated national response to serious, organised and complex crime. In particular, directed powers could be vital in time-critical situations where arrangements need to be made quickly and there is not time to establish satisfactory voluntary arrangements. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has quite reasonably posed is: why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to consent before the director-general can direct the British Transport Police to perform a task yet there is no equivalent consent requirement when one of the 43 territorial forces in England and Wales is subject to such a direction?
The British Transport Police is different from police forces in England and Wales for three reasons. First, it is not a Home Office police force but a special police force, ultimately accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. Secondly—
Lord Harris of Haringey
Can the noble Earl explain how that accountability differs from the accountability that a Home Office force has to the police and crime commissioner?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will go on to say that but what is particularly important is how the British Transport Police is funded. Secondly, unlike police forces in England and Wales, the British Transport Police has a national remit which includes jurisdiction across the railway network in England and Wales—and in Scotland, where policing in the latter is otherwise devolved to the Scottish Government. Thirdly, the British Transport Police is primarily contracted and funded by providers of railway services—the train operators and Network Rail—applying the “user pays” principle. Railway service providers are required to enter into a police services agreement with the British Transport Police as a condition of their licence to operate. Home Office forces have no such contractual or financial relationship with industry of day-to-day significance.
Taking into consideration these difficulties, a direction to the British Transport Police is so significant in regards to the potential impact on accountability, devolved policing arrangements with Scotland and arrangements with industry that it requires a Secretary of State to affirm that the issue is of sufficient national interest. I would also be very surprised if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not want to be aware that agreement could not be reached. It would be a very serious matter. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
While the noble Earl is quite right about the funding, if the direction to the British Transport Police involves large expenditure, will that come with a cheque or a commitment to pay the extra cost or is the industry to be expected to pay it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in all these arrangements assistance is quite often provided under the old pals Act and they do not worry about the expenditure. However, if specialist resources were required—perhaps a mobile crane or a digging machine—that extra expense would have to be recovered. It is inevitable that agreement would be reached. However, the British Transport Police would not have that sort of equipment available. It would normally be used to intercept someone on the transport network.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Perhaps the noble Earl could also address this point. I understand the point about the different funding arrangements for the British Transport Police, which is extremely significant, but the funding is therefore coming not from the Government but from the transport operating companies. Those companies are engaged through the British Transport Police Authority so why does this clause not therefore relate to that authority, to which the chief constable is accountable, where the funders, who may feel that they have an issue at stake, would be represented? Would that not be a better arrangement?
Perhaps the noble Earl will respond to the question about the terrifying cases of urgency that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, worried us with on the previous group of amendments. How are they going to be dealt with with this requirement for the prior approval of the Secretary of State?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in a terrifying case of urgency, it is in my opinion inconceivable that the British Transport Police would not agree to assist.
In answer to the noble Lord’s question about the British Transport Police Authority, he is right to point out that the chief constable of the British Transport Police is accountable to the British Transport Police Authority in the same way that chief constables of police forces in England and Wales are accountable to their respective police and crime commissioners. However, in the case of a directed tasking to the British Transport Police, the Secretary of State for Transport is ultimately responsible for the security of passengers and staff on the national rail network and on underground and light-rail systems. It is therefore right that she should have the ability to consent to direct tasking of the British Transport Police at the national level aimed at tackling serious and organised crime.
Moreover, tasking by the National Crime Agency may need to take place in time-critical situations. Members of the British Transport Police Authority meet six times a year to set British Transport Police targets and to allocate funds for its budget. It may not be possible to clear consent with the British Transport Police Authority in time for the necessary executive action to take place. This is not to say that the British Transport Police Authority would not be notified by its chief constable of a direct tasking request. I have no doubt that the chief constable of the British Transport Police would notify the British Transport Police Authority of direct tasking as soon as it was feasible to do so. Noble Lords have not convinced me that a situation would arise where the British Transport Police would refuse to provide assistance voluntarily.
Lord Rosser
If the Minister believes that there are no circumstances in which the British Transport Police would fail to provide the assistance required, why does he need directions in the Bill at all on the basis that, presumably, any police force would provide the assistance required?
Earl Attlee
As I said, it is to provide a necessary backstop. When two negotiating parties know that one party will win at the end of the day, it is amazing how agreement is reached quite quickly.
Lord Rosser
I think the Minister has answered the point that I made. If he is arguing that about the British Transport Police, he does not need the provision in the Bill for any police force.
I want to clarify that I have understood correctly what has been said. What I have inferred—and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that I have understood it correctly—is that if the director-general makes a direction under Clause 5 that would require a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to perform a task, that direction does not require the consent of the Secretary of State, albeit that it would if it was in relation to the British Transport Police. Likewise, Schedule 3 provides that the director-general may,
“direct any of the following”,
including the chief officer of an England and Wales police force and the chief constable of the British Transport Police,
“to provide specified assistance to the NCA”.
While the approval of the Secretary of State would be required for a direction to a chief officer of an England and Wales police force, it would not be required for a direction to the chief constable of the British Transport Police. I simply want the Minister to clarify that I have understood what he said and that that is the distinction between Clause 5 and Schedule 3. I see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, nodding so I take it that what I have just said is a correct understanding of the position that the Minister explained.
I listened—frankly, I will wish to read it in Hansard—to the distinction between performing a task, which is referred to in Clause 5, and the director-general directing,
“any of the following to provide specified assistance to the NCA”.
Bear in mind that from the director-general’s point of view, if he can satisfy himself—or herself—that he requires a task to be performed by the chief officer of an England and Wales police force, he does not need the consent of the Secretary of State. Therefore, it might be quite tempting for a director-general to try to make sure that any direction that he gives comes under the heading of “performing a task”, rather than “providing specified assistance”. That is also what I have inferred from the Minister’s answer.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that the director-general would base an operational decision on bureaucratic convenience.
Lord Rosser
I am sure it would not be based on bureaucratic convenience. If he could satisfy himself that he was asking for a task to be performed, there would be less bureaucracy as he would not have to get the consent of the Secretary of State. Once again, I fear that there may be a view that there is a very clear divide between what could be defined as performing a task and what might be deemed to be providing specified assistance. I suspect that there will be grey areas over that in at least some cases.
I pointed out to the Minister that it was said at Second Reading that,
“the Bill provides that the director-general should, in exceptional circumstances, be able to direct police forces in England and Wales”.—[Official Report, 28/5/12; col. 974.]
I asked where in the Bill it says “exceptional circumstances”. I take it from the noble Earl’s answer that he agrees with me that the statement that the Bill provides for the director-general to be able to direct police forces in England and Wales in exceptional circumstances is not correct. Such wording does not appear in the Bill, although this was implied at Second Reading. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, these are purely drafting amendments to the provisions in Schedule 3 relating to the exchange of information between police forces and the National Crime Agency. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule apply these provisions to each UK police force and the British Transport Police. However, the British Transport Police is already covered by the definition of a UK police force in Clause 16. Consequently, it does not need to be separately listed. The amendments therefore remove the superfluous paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 4(1)(b). I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we can see that this is a drafting amendment. I must admit that when I first saw the clause I wondered what had happened to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence Police, which also should have been covered if it was necessary to include the British Transport Police. I think that the Minister has been able to give me an assurance for each of those special police forces, which, as the definitions on page 12 indicate, are UK police forces. They would have the same relationship as regards having to be notified and the disclosure of information as all other police forces in the UK. It is a helpful amendment that clarifies the existing position.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this group of amendments all relate to the provisions in Schedule 3 regarding payments for tasks, assistance and facilities. Amendment 40, in the name of noble friend Lady Hamwee, seeks in effect to bring the provisions relating to charging in Schedule 1 into line with those in Schedule 3; namely, that they must be agreed by both sides.
I put it to my noble friend that this amendment would conflate two quite separate charging regimes. The charging provisions in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 enable the National Crime Agency to provide particular services, whether to another law enforcement agency or to any other person. They are not about the provision of assistance or facilities under Schedule 3 or the tasking arrangements in Clause 5. Such services might include, for example, the provision of training, crime operational support or the services provided by the Specialist Operations Centre. Charging for these services, which are provided on request, will normally have to be on a cost-recovery basis in line with the Treasury’s guidance on managing public money. In other words, these services cannot be made under the old pals act; they have to be properly accounted for.
Amendment 41 seeks to provide for a protocol which sets out the appropriate amounts to be paid for tasks, assistance or facilities performed or provided under the provisions of Clause 5 and Schedule 3. I can certainly support the spirit of this amendment. The National Crime Agency will need to agree policies for cross-charging with the police service and other law enforcement partners that are equitable, practical and help to support the co-ordinated effort to tackle serious and organised crime. However, I do not think the amendment is necessary as the existing schedule already allows for the appropriate amount to be agreed through a broader policy or protocol. The key point in Schedule 3 is that payments for tasks, assistance or facilities, if any, must be agreed between both sides. It does not specify how that agreement must be reached or that it must be done on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, Amendments 42 to 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, seek to replace the Home Secretary’s role as final arbiter with an independent advisory panel on payments. I would argue that creating another quango is not a good way to provide value for money or to secure the simple and speedy resolution of disputes over charging arrangements. Indeed, I hope that there will be few disputes, and I imagine that both parties would be reluctant to involve the Secretary of State.
In addition, the approach to cross-charging in Schedule 3, including the role of the Secretary of State, broadly mirrors the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The previous Administration did not see the need for creating a separate body to decide on appropriate amounts for payments in the absence of agreement, and neither do this Government.
Amendment 43 would remove any role for the devolved Administrations in setting appropriate amounts if agreement cannot be reached. As the budgets for these law enforcement bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved, it is right that the devolved Administrations have a role to play in ensuring that payments are fair in situations where either a Scottish or Northern Irish body is involved.
I would hope and expect that the cross-charging arrangements for tasks, assistance and facilities will be agreed amicably between the NCA and its partners. It is right that the Bill includes backstop arrangements for resolving any disputes. The arrangements provided for in the Bill broadly mirror those for SOCA, and there is no good reason why we need to adopt a different approach for the NCA. Accordingly, I would invite my noble friend Lady Hamwee to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I wonder sometimes whether the noble Earl lives in a slightly different and more benign world than I do. Several times during the course of today’s debate, whether it has been on the power of direction and payments, he has said, “We hope that it will be okay, we can’t see ourselves using this power, things should work out okay”. Real life is not like that; disputes occur. This idea of having a backstop and saying that it does not matter if it is not perfect and not okay because it will hardly ever be used is not really good enough. We need to have some kind of process. I do not know whether the noble Earl took on board what I said. I am not wedded necessarily to an advisory board, but I think that we need a process that is not the Secretary of State or, as the noble Earl calls it, a backstop.
There will from time to time be disputes on payments and the power of direction, and we need to have a process that this House is confident can deal with any of those problems that occur—and not just think that it will be okay because it will not happen very often. I think that we will pursue this at a later stage. There may be further discussions in Committee, but at this stage I am happy not to press my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s concerns about this. I wrote down “amicable?”. The noble Earl referred to a backstop, but the point of providing a very clear framework—although I do not want to use that term—and making clear provisions is that they are clear and, if things are not amicable, one knows where to go. It had never occurred to me until an earlier group of amendments that the old pals arrangement might apply to anything under this Bill—but perhaps I am just too cynical.
On Amendment 40, as I understood the noble Earl’s remarks, the NCA will be subject to certain formal Treasury guidelines. He is nodding at that, but I wonder whether he might share those with Members of the Committee after the debate. It may not be appropriate to go into all the detail now, but it would be very helpful to be clearer about this before we return to the matter, as I suspect we will.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I was referring to the Treasury guidance on managing public money.
Baroness Hamwee
Let us see how the Treasury website operates and whether we can get into it.
On Amendment 41, the noble Earl argued that what is provided in paragraph 29 is not on a case-by-case basis but is an overall principle. I do not read it like that, because paragraph 29 refers to a provision requiring,
“one person (“R”) to pay the appropriate amount to another person (“P”)”.
The only way in which I can construe that paragraph is that we are talking about the particular “R” and the particular “P”, not anyone who might come under “R” or “P” in a range of different situations. Perhaps that is something that we can seek to understand rather better after the Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 40.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 58B. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 deals with the disclosure of information, and regulations that may cover disclosure. We are told at sub-paragraph (6) that:
“Such regulations may, in particular … modify any provision of Schedule 7 in its application to such a disclosure, or … disapply any such provision”.
My amendment would exclude from that modification or disapplication paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, which provides that,
“any disclosure, in contravention of any provisions of the Data Protection Act”,
or,
“prohibited by Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act”,
is not authorised. I hope, and expect to be told by the Minister, that that is what Schedule 6 provides because of the way that it is drafted. However, that was not obvious to me when I read it, and therefore it seemed quite important to clarify the point.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, although I recognise the absolute importance of safeguarding the disclosure of sensitive personal information, I believe that Amendment 58B is unnecessary. The kinds of information that will be required for the purpose of an inspection will be limited in nature to those required for exercising an inspection function. The disclosure of information to a policing inspectorate, and any onward disclosure, will be subject to the safeguards in Schedule 7.
Schedule 6 contains a back-stop power that enables the Home Secretary, by regulations, to make further provision about the disclosure of information by the NCA to policing inspectorates. Although this includes a power to modify Schedule 7, should this be necessary to enable the proper, independent inspection of the NCA, it is not intended to use this power to override important existing statutory safeguards relating to sensitive personal data.
Furthermore, let me reassure my noble friend, it is not paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 that applies the extensive safeguards set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but those Acts themselves. This paragraph simply puts that beyond doubt. I will be clear that should any regulations be made governing the disclosure of information from the NCA to policing inspectorates and their onward disclosure of such information, those regulations cannot override these safeguards by modifying paragraph 1 of Schedule 7.
I hope that in the light of this explanation, my noble friend is satisfied that there will be adequate arrangements in place to independently inspect the agency that respect important data protection safeguards. I accordingly invite her to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think I had better read that following today’s debate, because the noble Earl seemed to be saying that those two Acts could be not be overridden; but he started his explanation by saying that it was not intended to use the provision in Schedule 6 to override them. I do not quite understand how those two statements fit together. If they cannot be overridden, the Secretary of State could not intend to override them. However, that was not, as I heard it, the implication of the introduction when he said that it was not intended to use them in that way. Of course, I withdraw the amendment, but will also read what has been said and make sure that I am entirely comfortable with it.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 14, I shall speak also to Amendments 18, 19, 52 and 53. I can be brief with these technical amendments. The Bill already makes provision in relation to people who volunteer as police special constables who become NCA officers or NCA specials. These amendments will extend those same arrangements to members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve. That includes ring-fencing the powers of an NCA officer or NCA special, so that where a person is both an NCA officer or NCA special and a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve, any powers conferred on him or her in the former NCA capacity cannot be exercised when the person is acting in the latter—the PSNI Reserve—capacity. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. I ask him to clarify a couple of points. Have these amendments had the approval of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Justice Minister, or the appropriate Minister, in Northern Ireland? The only point I can make generally about this Bill on the relationship between the NCA and the PSNI is that there can never be a situation where a police officer or special in Northern Ireland is subject to direction and control from London without the same accountability as officers in Northern Ireland, whether they are part of the National Crime Agency or not. That would also apply to the specials that the noble Earl is talking about. I seek some guidance from him that this has been discussed with the Northern Ireland Executive and that Northern Ireland Ministers are content with this amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I cannot answer that point for certain, but it is inconceivable that the Government would table such an amendment without the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive. If I am wrong, of course I will write to the noble Baroness.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment. I appreciate that she is keen to encourage the exchange of staff both to and from the National Crime Agency. Indeed, interchange in both directions will be key to ensuring that the NCA benefits from the collective experience of policing as well as sharing its knowledge and specialist skills with UK forces.
SOCA officers regularly operate alongside operational colleagues in the police service, and it is vital that NCA officers are able to do the same. It is for this reason that the Bill provides for police officers to be seconded to the NCA and to be designated with the powers of an NCA officer during the period of their secondment. Two-way assistance provisions in Schedule 3 allow for NCA officers to operate under the direction and control of the chief officer of a UK police force and vice versa. However, there may be some merit in providing separately for more formal arrangements whereby NCA officers could be seconded to a UK police force for a sustained period of time. This might allow forces to benefit from the experience of NCA officers on a longer-term attachment.
If my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment, I can undertake to consider the matter further in advance of Report. At this stage I cannot commit to bringing forward a government amendment, but I agree that we should explore this issue in more detail. I will, of course, write to her once we have reached a conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me a few technical questions. I suspect that I will have to reply to some of them in writing. He asked whether any person can be seconded to the NCA. The answer is yes. There is no reason why any person could not be seconded. However, there must be clear arrangements for the use of powers. It is worth pointing out that a person can be an NCA officer, but various powers can be designated for that person. Of course, it is important that powers are designated only where the person is properly qualified to exercise those powers.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the less I speak, the more concessions we get, and I am very grateful to the Minister for that. Of course I will seek to withdraw the amendment. When the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was raising some perfectly valid questions, it seemed to me that the terminology of paragraph 13—that the director-general “may make arrangements”—was likely to cover qualifications and scope. “Make arrangements” is a pretty broad provision.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on the need for qualifications, the director-general will want to be advised of the suitability of potential secondees. They will be treated as NCA officers and will need to satisfy the usual criteria in order to be designated with powers.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I look forward to talking to the Minister further about secondment and I am grateful for his offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I speak in support of this amendment. When I looked at it, I thought that I would not advise anybody to become a special in the National Crime Agency as not only do you not get paid but even if you are injured or killed in the course of your employment as a special, you get nothing other than compensation for salary. Therefore, if you are not a salaried person—for example, if you are self-employed—you get nothing. You get nothing for the injury itself. Presumably, the Government have in mind that you would sue somebody, whether it is themselves or the criminal concerned who caused the injury or death. Do they have in mind that a person should go to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to recover compensation? Putting in compensation for salary is so limiting that there must be some purpose behind that wording. I look forward to hearing it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving her amendment. It is, of course, important that the National Crime Agency is able adequately to provide for the rare and very sad occasions when an NCA special is injured or killed in the line of duty. I would like to point out that when I joined the TA I did not know that I was going to be paid. I suddenly started receiving giro cheques when I was at school which were double the recommended term’s pocket money. I spent about 18 years in the TA as a junior NCO. If, sadly, I had been injured, I would have expected that a war pension would be paid on the basis of my rank, which stayed very junior for the first 18 years. Given the different status of NCA specials within the agency, the Bill expressly provides for the NCA to be able to pay sums by way of compensation for loss of salary in such an event. The details of that scheme will need to be drawn up over the coming months.
I suspect my noble friend will find that the inverse speaking time law applies to this amendment as well. She questioned whether the compensation should be limited to loss of salary alone. That is a fair question. An NCA special injured in the line of duty could, I accept, suffer other financial loss. If my noble friend would agree to withdraw her amendment, I should be happy to consider this point in more detail over the summer. At this stage, I cannot commit to bringing forward a government amendment on Report but I can certainly assure her that we will carefully consider the points she has raised and let her know the outcome of that consideration in advance of the next stage.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Government need have no fear that their schedule for getting through this Bill in Committee is in any danger, because I think that we will speak for briefer and briefer periods. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to seeing how this goes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I most warmly support the amendment and welcome the tripartite negotiations announced by the Minister. I hope that speed will be of the essence and that we shall be informed of the outcome before Third Reading. I hope that he will not simply say, “Further negotiations are going on. We hope to make some practical arrangements”. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will not let go of the matter and will keep an eagle eye on the negotiations.
The objective of the Bill—the protection of freedoms —is deficient unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, it protects the freedoms and interests of the most vulnerable members of society. It is hard to think of a more vulnerable group than children who have been trafficked. It is bad enough imagining the distress of an adult who arrives in a foreign country alone and oppressed and has to contend with traffickers, the immigration authorities and the police. How much more traumatic and inhibiting it must be for a child to face the same challenge.
In this situation, children need to be supported and represented so that their best interests are safeguarded. The issue at stake is whether we rest content with minimal provision, as required by the EU directive, or whether we seek an effective and properly resourced system of advocacy. I for one would go for the latter: a better system of advocacy for the children. I do not find the phrase “legal advocate” difficult. “Guardian” would be quite difficult to understand, but I can see what a “legal advocate” might do. However, other people may think differently.
Our recent performance in losing 32 per cent of trafficked children in local authority care between 2007 and 2010 suggests that we need to raise our game. How can so many be lost? It is too huge a loss. We should seek a better way, as outlined in the UNICEF definition of the role of a guardian and the standards set out in the various international instruments.
The amendment offers us that better way. The provisions of the Children Act 1989 are good as far as they go, but they do not meet the special requirements of children who have been trafficked. The noble Lord’s amendment sets out the duties of a legal advocate with admirable clarity and provides for suitably qualified and trained people to fill that role. It has the advantage, by drawing on employees of statutory organisations or volunteers with specialist NGOs, of keeping extra costs down.
I am grateful, too, for Amendment 57A, because there was a fear, generated in the margins of your Lordships’ House, that Amendment 57 would provide an incentive for opportunistic and misguided parents to traffick their own children in order to gain entry into the United Kingdom. There was that fear and the new amendment deals with that. Again, I do not know on what evidence that fear rested, but for me it would still be wrong to fail to provide support for genuine child victims simply out of fear that unscrupulous parents might take advantage of the provision.
To return to Amendment 57A, I am personally not convinced of the Government's argument that the status quo is good enough. I do not think that it is. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, and his supporters have given us an opportunity to remedy a serious gap in our provision for victims of trafficking, particularly children. I thank him for that and urge that we seize the opportunity with both hands. I am grateful for the consultation that will take place. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will not kick it into the long grass.
Abu Qatada
Earl Attlee Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, again I repeat that we regret the decision of the SIAC court, just as we regret even more the earlier decision of the European Court of Human Rights. As I repeated towards the end of the Statement, those things need to be addressed in due course. The noble Lord then asked what we are doing to ensure that Qatada will in due course be deported. I assure him that we will do everything we can, in terms of the negotiations that have taken place and the negotiations that will take place, to make sure that we can deport him to Jordan, and that he will be entitled to a fair trial that is compliant under Article 6. We believe that the European Court of Human Rights got that wrong and that our own courts got it right in that what he was going to face was compliant under Article 6, but that is another matter which is for discussion on future occasions. We will continue to discuss it with the Jordanian Government and I hope that in due course my right honourable friend or myself or both of us will be able to let the House know how we are managing on that. But as regards a timescale, I cannot give the noble Lord one at this stage, and nor do I suspect he would expect to have one from me on this occasion.
The bail conditions are very severe; they are set out in the 1997 SIAC Act and the Immigration Act 1971. We are satisfied that they are appropriate for keeping him under control for the next three months, as is appropriate before we have to look at these matters again. The conditions are more severe than what is available under TPIMs. We discussed at length during the passage of the TPIMs Act the appropriate level of security that we and the security services need for keeping adequate control over dangerous people. I believe that we struck the right balance in reflecting not only the individual’s human rights but the security of this country. No doubt the noble Lord would like to use this one particular case to make a political football out of the matter. I think that that is regrettable and I hope that he will not follow that on this occasion. We believe that what we have in TPIMs is appropriate and adequate to deal with the threats that we are likely to face this year and in any subsequent year. We believe that what the previous Government set out was overly onerous and not appropriate to what is necessary to provide security for the individual.
I hope that I have given the noble Lord the appropriate assurances that he wanted on the more important questions. We will, as I said, exert every sinew to ensure that this very dangerous man, Abu Qatada, is deported from this country in due course, with proper respect for law and the support of the courts as is appropriate.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, may I remind the House of the benefit of short questions being put to the Minister so that he may answer as many as possible?
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we have already debated these issues at some length in Committee and I am grateful to noble Lords for taking time to meet with me and my officials since then to discuss these matters further. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has so expertly and temptingly set out, Amendment 42 seeks to allow the use of fixed barriers in certain circumstances and to specify certain conditions that must be met.
We consider the amendment to be unnecessary as Clause 54(3) already requires that there is express or implied consent by the driver of the vehicle to restricting its movement by parking where there is a fixed barrier. In practice this means that the existence of the barrier must have been apparent to the driver, either visibly or through clear signage, when they parked. Secondly, in order to establish a contract as a basis for payment, the terms for parking would have to be clearly displayed. Therefore, if the landholder demanded a fee for release of the vehicle without such a basis, he would be committing an offence under Clause 54(1). In answer to my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am convinced that we have drafted these provisions correctly.
Amendment 43 seeks to create a new power for the Secretary of State to grant lawful authority to clamp and tow vehicles to those who request it, with the expectation that applications would not be refused if made by local authorities, residents’ associations and community groups. Again, we consider the amendment to be unnecessary because there are existing powers for local authorities to take a controlling interest in the management of parking on private land with the agreement with the landholder.
Section 33(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states:
“A local authority may, on such terms as they think fit … arrange with any person for him to provide such a parking place on any land of which he is the owner or in which he has an interest”.
The phrase,
“provide such a parking place”
refers to a Section 32 parking place, which is the general power for local authorities to provide off-street parking places. As a result, the local authority could make provisions as to the conditions for the use of the parking places and manage and enforce those conditions under the Traffic Management Act 2004. This would enable local authorities to use their lawful authority to clamp or tow those vehicles that have contravened the terms and conditions for parking on that land.
The amendment would also introduce regulation of wheel clampers overseen by the Secretary of State who will also presumably be responsible for enforcement, rather than the Security Industry Authority or another body. The requirements set out in Amendment 43 could lead to a patchwork system of regulation in that each application made would have to set out how they meet the requirements, including in respect of an appeals process. However, the amendment does not provide for national standards which any local scheme must adhere to, so the amendment could lead to a system where wheel clamping schemes are different throughout the country. I am sure that is not the noble Baroness’s intention.
We have seen that following seven years of licensing by the Security Industry Authority, rogue wheel clampers continue to carry out their unscrupulous practices and we do not consider that further regulation of the industry will deter them, no matter how much the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, deplores their activity. An outright ban on wheel clamping without lawful authority is the only way to deal with rogue wheel clampers. Wheel clamping and the towing away of vehicles by private individuals or businesses without lawful authority in order to force payment of a charge are unacceptable and should be prohibited. As well as causing motorists significant distress and anxiety, the clampers in effect hold the vehicle to ransom—or at least threaten to do so as a deterrent. No one can justify or defend the exorbitant release fees and intimidatory tactics employed.
Throughout our debates, many noble Lords have strongly made the point that clamping is a particularly effective deterrent to inconsiderate and unauthorised parking on private land. It may be, but is it also disproportionate. Supposing I was attempting to deter motorists from speeding: if I proposed that the police have the power to clamp an errant motorist’s car for a couple of hours without recourse to an independent tribunal, I expect your Lordships would have something to say.
There can be situations where, in the circumstances, the motorist who is clamped has acted reasonably. What about a midwife who is seeing a patient in a large block of flats and reasonably believes that permission to park has been granted? How can it be right to clamp his or her vehicle in such circumstances? One only has to ask what the knock-on effect could be. What about police operations? I spoke to a pal of mine who undertakes covert police duties, dealing with very serious matters. He said in an e-mail:
“I can speak from first-hand experience on this. On several occasions this happened to me whilst on duty on covert operations. On every occasion I had to park my police vehicle quickly and deploy on foot from the vehicle. The vehicle was always left in open parking spaces on private land and subsequently clamped. Whilst I cannot quote the figures, I know this happens on many occasions in similar circumstances”.
The fact is that a clamping company operative, no matter how well meaning, cannot possibly know whether what he is doing is reasonable. Therefore private clamping on private land is fundamentally flawed.
Turning to Amendments 44, 45—-
Lord Lucas
My Lords, why would it be any different for the policeman if a barrier had been placed across his car? He still would not have been able to use it. Why is that acceptable and a clamp not?
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord makes a very good point. The policeman would have to take that risk. However, he would be aware that he was taking the operational risk that his vehicle might be clamped.
I turn to the other amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has explained, these amendments seek to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The Government would be required to prescribe and enforce the system, which would need to be funded by the industry. It is a bit odd that in this group of amendments the noble Baroness proposes retaining clamping without any effective means of appeal while in other amendments she is insisting on a system of appeal.
As indicated in previous debates, the Government are committed to providing an independent appeals service, which will cover all tickets issued on private land by members of an accredited trade association. In practice, this body will cover all ticketing by members of the British Parking Association’s approved operator scheme, who are the major private parking providers in the sector with accredited access to the DVLA keeper data, and will therefore be able to pursue vehicle keepers for unpaid parking charges after the measures in Schedule 4 come into force. However, we have made absolutely clear that we will not commence the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 until this independent appeals body is in place.
The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, propose much broader regulation covering all parking on private land which, we believe, would impose a not inconsiderable burden on smaller landowners, including those who wish to manage perhaps only a handful of parking spaces, or even one.
I fear that I am not in full agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, regarding Scotland, where wheel-clamping has been banned since 1992. We have seen no convincing evidence that levels of rogue ticketing are a particular problem. However, we are not being complacent; we have given these amendments very careful consideration and, in this respect, I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who have taken the time to meet me to discuss the Government’s proposals. I have also had very helpful and informative meetings with the British Parking Association, Citizens Advice and Consumer Focus.
Some noble Lords raised the issue of Citizens Advice Scotland dealing with more than 1,500 parking inquiries, which represents a big increase on previous years. The figures need to be reviewed in the context of the number of parking tickets issued each year; I do not have the figures for Scotland to hand but, in England and Wales, local authorities issued over 4.2 million penalty charge notices for on-road contraventions alone in 2009-10.
Following discussions, we have agreed that part of our commitment to monitoring the impact of the provisions will be to continue to liaise closely with consumer protection groups to ensure that if rogue ticketing activity does occur such groups can feed back to us. If it becomes a significant problem, we will consider further measures, including wider regulation, if it proves necessary in the light of experience. I hope that that meets the needs of the noble Lord, Lord Wills.
As I have said, we have already established a new system for parking management companies—
Lord Wills
I am very grateful to the Minister, who is genuinely trying to offer reassurance on these issues. I think that the whole House is grateful to him for that. But is he saying that he will continue to monitor the effects, so that if the Government see an increase in the sort of selfish behaviour by motorists on private land that my noble friend has outlined, they will be prepared to introduce new regulations to tackle it?
Earl Attlee
No, my Lords. Where I am making the absolute commitment is to monitor the effect of rogue ticketing very carefully and, if necessary, introduce further regulation. I will not fall into the temptation offered by the noble Lord.
As I said, we are already establishing a new system for parking management companies that have accredited access to DVLA data. We intend that the independent appeals service will be able to report back to the industry on appeals, so that precedents can be established and drivers do not have to continually appeal on the same grounds. In this way, the appeals body will help to drive up standards in the industry and provide greater clarity to both the motorist and parking operators. The accredited companies operating under this new regime will be able to offer their services to smaller-scale landowners and parking providers, and we believe that in many circumstances that will be an attractive option for landowners with perhaps only a handful of parking places, knowing that parking on their land will be managed by a professional and responsible company with all due safeguards in place. I think that there would be serious reputational issues if an individual or an organisation took the option of not using an ATA operator, but we have left that option open to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the European legislation in gestation at the moment. The Government believe that their proposals offer the right balance between the rights of motorists and those of landowners, for the reasons I have explained. We have agreed to return to the issue if rogue ticketing proves to be a problem, but the question of possible future European legislation is a little academic at this stage, although we will obviously need to pay due regard to any commitment to which the UK Government sign up.
My noble friend Lady Randerson also raised the problem of small and dispersed parking facilities. It is entirely possible for the landowner or user to take a photo of the offending vehicle and the warning signs and pass them on to an ATA parking operator, assuming that they have the necessary enabling contact. That ATA company would be able to do the administration.
I hope that in the light of these clear assurances the noble Baroness will feel free to withdraw her amendment.
UK Border Agency
Earl Attlee Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, at least I can welcome the fact that the noble Lord welcomed the fact that we are making a Statement. He alleges that the Government are failing in their duty. I think that is a bit rich from the party opposite when one considers some of the failures that I outlined in the Statement made by the Home Secretary, which were failures of the party opposite when in government. We accept that there have been failings here, which is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set up those two internal inquiries and, as she quite rightly emphasised, the third and most important external inquiry that will be conducted by John Vine.
As I made clear in the Statement, the terms of reference for both inquiries will be set out and placed in the Library, and I will make sure that the noble Lord gets copies. The draft terms of reference are still being discussed with John Vine, but they will cover a number of aspects, particularly investigating and reporting the level of checks operated at ports between 1 January and 4 November—Friday of last week—and fully reporting any potential adverse outcomes to border security created by any unauthorised relaxation. The noble Lord will be well aware that at this stage I cannot say whether anyone posing a threat snuck through on those occasions. That is what we hope John Vine will discover as part of his inquiry.
As I made clear in the Statement, initial results from the pilots that we discussed were fairly good. The problem was that although the pilots were authorised by the Home Secretary, quite rightly, in June of last year after extensive consultation—I could take the noble Lord at considerable length through the whole decision-making process, but that will come out in the inquiry—what seems to have happened is that certain officials went beyond what was agreed. My right honourable friend made it quite clear that they were not go to beyond what was agreed, which is why we are asking John Vine and others to look into this.
Again, I stress that my right honourable friend gave the authorisation for those pilots. We will publish the decision-making process as it is unearthed by John Vine as part of his inquiry. Again, my right honourable friend made that clear in her Statement. I shall quote her words to remind the noble Lord. She stated:
“I am very happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers”.
I feel that that makes it as clear as can be to the noble Lord that we are not trying to cover up anything whatever. Nor are we asking officials, as he put it, to carry the can for ministerial decisions.
My right honourable friend made a decision about pilots, as I said. It is alleged that certain officials exceeded their authority. That is what we want to have examined and will have examined because the security of our borders is fundamental. I look forward to passing on copies of those inquiries to the noble Lord. As I said, John Vine hopes to report by January. We hope to have the initial report by Dave Wood in a somewhat shorter time. However, as the noble Lord said, the independent investigation by John Vine is far more important.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefits of short questions to the Minister in order that as many noble Lords as possible have the opportunity to ask a question.
Drug Use and Possession: Royal Commission
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
Before the Minister sits down, will she explain why she will not have a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? It has obviously now been in place for 40 years. Whatever may be said about Portugal, the reality is it had a very high level of HIV before decriminalisation and now has a very good record. Most importantly, young people there are now less and less likely to go into drug addiction. In view of this evidence, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government will not even look at and evaluate, whether through an impact assessment or a royal commission, their own policies? We have very high levels of drug use in this country, and we are not doing well.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The noble Baroness is doing us a slight injustice. I did not say that we would not look at anything; I said that we were going to base our current policy on constant evaluation. We understand that we need to look at how successful our policy is being. We do not believe, on the basis of the strategy that we wish to pursue, which has new elements to it, that the moment has come for a thoroughgoing review, but we are going to continue to evaluate the effects of our policy. I hope that that will convince noble Lords that we are not going into this absolutely blindly.
I would like to say one or two other things, but I must conclude. The Government will put resources, energy and ambition into pursuing a policy that we are endeavouring to make broader in its scope and more effective in its outcomes.
Counterterrorism Review
Earl Attlee Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, one reason why the Government were determined to deal with control orders before they even came into office was precisely because of our perception that they were damaging to community relations. In the evidence and the responses to questionnaires and surveys, stop and search comes up quite as often as a source of grievance, if not more so, than control orders, but the Government accept that they were harmful. The Government respect the role of the judiciary, which is one reason why we are bringing this regime into line with what we believe is legally acceptable.
On the question of the number of days needed to bring a successful prosecution, I have not asked ACPO the specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord. However, like the rest of us, ACPO has learnt from experience about the time needed in practice to bring successful charges, and made it absolutely clear to the Home Secretary—as indeed have the intelligence and security services—that it is content with the proposals.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions so that my noble friend can answer as many noble Lords as she can.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am happy to give a general welcome to the Statement. In confirming that this is not a mere rebranding of control orders, will the noble Baroness point to requiring the permission of the High Court, which seems to take us into a completely different legal structure? I suspect that many of us will wish to explore the evidential test that she mentioned and whether we can move towards a criminal test beyond reasonable doubt. Will she and her officials continue to work actively on that? Secondly, does she agree that arrangements that enable a person subject to the measure to work or study are very significant indeed? That control was extremely offensive.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend and, through her, the Home Secretary on striking the right balance in this very difficult area between the need to protect the public and the need to safeguard personal and individual liberty. May I ask about the emergency legislation to extend the period of pre-charge detention? Given what my noble friend has said about the Government’s ability to put that in place very quickly, do they intend this emergency power to be available not simply in a general period or emergency but for an individual suspect under detention, in respect of whom the police, and perhaps a magistrate or a judge, are convinced that a longer period of detention is necessary?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if we are quick we can get one more round in. I suggest Cross Bench, Liberal Democrat, Labour.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Blair of Boughton
Thank you, my Lords. I need to declare an interest in that I was a former member of ACPO and of the police service in the metropolis. I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement. I merely carry on from the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, which is: how can Parliament legislate on the back of a police and Security Service operation? One reason why ACPO brought up the question of the length of detention in a period when we had no atrocity immediately before us was so that Parliament could debate it in an open atmosphere. I do not suggest that it cannot be done, but an enormous amount of thought has to be given to how both Houses of Parliament could decide that the situation had reached the point at which emergency legislation had to be brought in, particularly if it was not after an atrocity but merely because of a series of desperately significant operations going on. I do not understand how this House or the other place could debate that in the open.