Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing the order for consideration by the Grand Committee today. As pointed out by my noble friend, the Committee will recall that the House looked at this matter in great detail when we approved the principle during the passage of the Immigration Act last year. Our task today is to ensure that the Minister is properly and appropriately implementing the legislation. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, will be as forensic as she usually is.

I recall last year enjoying privately teasing some noble Lords who were involved in the higher education sector by asking them to promise me that they would not use these provisions as a selling point in their organisation’s prospectus. The plain fact is that we are capping health charges for overseas students at £150 per annum. If you tell someone that something is free, they will probably not believe you. If you tell an overseas student that their healthcare is capped at £150 per annum, they will think that it is a bargain. I think that it would help the Committee if the Minister, when she replies to the debate, would tell us how leading academic institutions in the United States of America treat healthcare costs.

A constant refrain last year was the suggestion that the Government wanted to reduce the number of overseas students by a variety of means. When I was in the Government, we were very keen on reducing the number of bogus students, but I never saw any evidence suggesting that we wanted to do anything other than encourage genuine students. Ironically, soft power is being debated in the Chamber this afternoon and overseas students are a very important component of our soft power portfolio. The Minister has already told the Committee that the number of full time, non-EEA students rose by 6%. That does not suggest that the Government’s action is deterring overseas students from coming here and, of course, they are very welcome.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. It is helpful to have a bit more detail than there is in the order. Again, I struggled trying to tie up the information in the impact assessment, because there seems to be a range of figures. I think that the noble Earl was being complimentary when he referred to me as forensic, although I am not sure he is always trying to be complimentary when he says that. I struggled when I tried to understand some of the figures in the impact assessment, especially when I compared them with the figures in the impact assessment of the previous order that we have just debated.

First, I should like to put on record that we do not oppose the principle of the health charge, which the noble Baroness will recall from the many long debates we had on the Bill. We understand that those who use the system should contribute to it and that remains our position; it has not changed at all. However, the noble Earl said that we should ensure that the charge is properly and appropriately implemented and that the evidence on which decisions are based is robust. The Minister will have seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee which questioned whether the order created perverse incentives and questioned the level of the charge.

Azure Card

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 20th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for raising this issue. I do not suppose he expected that such a narrowly drafted Motion that we take note of the Azure card would provoke such a wide-ranging debate. It has been helpful. I listened to his speech, which he gave with his customary passion. Initially, I think he was arguing for the abolition of the card, but later in his speech he talked about ways to change or modify it. A number of points came up in the speeches of all noble Lords. I should say at the outset that, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I am grateful for the briefing I received. I thought that the Library Note was particularly helpful and detailed. We should thank those in the Library who prepared it.

I suspect that the subject of this debate would have puzzled most people who may not have heard of the Azure card and may not be aware that there is support for those who have been refused asylum and, for whatever reason, are waiting to return to their country of origin. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about the reasons for this. There are cases where for genuine reasons such removal is not immediately possible. Government data show that the numbers are relatively small, but I always think that in cases such as this statistics do not tell you very much, because they do not tell the underlying story. These are people who have been refused asylum in the UK and have exhausted all routes to be allowed to stay in the UK, so there must be exceptional and special reasons why they do not leave and, in some cases, are provided temporarily with state support.

There are therefore different issues to consider, which have come out in the speeches. The first is the principle of whether it is considered appropriate or efficient for there to be a support system for failed asylum seekers that is operated separately from any other system. Secondly, there are the practical implications about whether the system in operation is as efficient and effective as it should or could be. The third issue, which we ranged around slightly, is about process of asylum and whether cases are being dealt with as quickly, and therefore as humanely, as possible.

On the first issue, anyone who seeks asylum in this country and is ultimately refused is expected to return to their country of origin as soon as possible. It is only in exceptional cases that those who have been refused would continue to receive state support—what has become known as Section 4 support, part of which is the Azure card. One of those exceptional circumstances would be that the individuals are seeking judicial review; otherwise, they would have to be destitute and able to prove that they are taking all reasonable steps to leave—

[Earl Attlee]

It is my recollection that if your application for judicial review has been accepted by the courts you go back to Section 95.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That is the case, once applications for judicial review have been accepted, but during the application process they come under Section 4. I am grateful to the noble Earl for helping to clarify that.

As I say, the individuals must be destitute and prove that they are taking all reasonable steps to leave the UK, unless they are medically unable to do so through ill health or if, for other reasons, it is pretty much impossible for them to leave immediately. It is right that in those exceptional circumstances, whether or not someone has a legal right to remain in the UK, we should provide temporary support to ensure that people are not destitute. The key word here is “temporary”, and it is of great concern how long some people have been receiving such Section 4 support. It is hard to imagine the circumstances of those who have been on Section 4 support for more than a year. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, tried to deal with that issue.

I understand that the average time for which someone receives such support is nine months—sometimes much less. However, the fact that anybody should be in that position for six or more years, as 127 people are at present, is incredible. I suspect that each one of them has very specific reasons, but there is neither the time, and nor is it appropriate, to go into them in this debate. However, I would like the Minister to help me, either today or in writing: what proportion and number of cases receive Section 4 support for one year or less, and for two years or less? The point that I am trying to get to is that the circumstances in which this is long-term support, which was never intended, must be exceptional. The fact that there are 127 people in such exceptional circumstances is alarming and distressing. I would like to know more about the reasons behind the figures.

The whole point of support—including Section 95 support—for those seeking asylum was that it would always be a temporary measure. The issues of delays in the system must be addressed. However, after listening to the debate and from my reading beforehand, I wonder whether those long-term delays should be approached in a completely different way. Delays of five to six years are far too long when we are dealing with Section 4 support.

I come to my second point on whether the Azure card is as efficient and effective as it could be. As we have heard, it is pre-loaded with funds and provided alongside accommodation. It was brought in because of concerns about potential abuse of the voucher system that was then in place, and was intended to be more effective and efficient. The importance of it to those who use it means that it must be efficient. I am grateful to the Red Cross and others who drew attention to a number of problems that they found with the operation and administration of the card. A number of those relate to problems that arise because of delays in people being able to leave the UK, but others relate to the operation of the card itself.

First, there is the issue of limited shops. Clearly, it is an issue if anyone on a limited budget, for whatever reason, is limited to which shops they use. The reasons that cash is not provided is understandable, but it means that those using the cards will pay higher prices for essential items. I listened to the point made about that by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I think he said that 85% of the grocery trade is covered. However, that is not the same as 85% of the outlets that are available. Those figures may also predate the fall in profits of the big supermarkets and the rise in the low-cost supermarkets that many people who are not on benefits, but earning a living, are trying to use now to save money; so we would probably find that the figure is not quite as good.

UK Visas and Immigration

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Steel for initiating this Question for Short Debate. It is vital for the security and prosperity of this country that we have a visa operation which is effective and transparent.

The subject for this debate is quite wide-ranging but I have very good advice. As we have heard, it will take some time completely to fix the system but I think it is important that we acknowledge the progress that has been made since we took the decision to scrap the UK Border Agency almost exactly one year ago. The international visa operation, as many, including the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, have recognised, is working well. Our standard service compares favourably with those of competitor countries but I accept that the system is not error-free. Last year, we processed almost 2.5 million applications overseas. The average processing time was seven and a half days—well within the service standard. This is despite significant rises in demand from some of our key growth markets. For example, last year in China applications rose by almost 40% on the year before.

We are also increasingly leading the world in the provision of high-quality tailored visa services. For example, we now offer priority three-to-five-day services in 70 countries, which will be expanded to more than 90 by the end of the year. We have also introduced a same day, super-priority service in India, which will be rolled out to China this summer and other countries later this year.

The Committee should be aware that none of this is at the expense of security. In the past year, we have interviewed more than 100,000 people applying to come to the UK as students to check that they are genuine and have the required language skills. I will say more about the speech of my noble friend Lord Phillips in a moment. We are also doing more detailed checks, including sharing details with other government departments, such as HMRC, to deal with those applicants who seek to abuse the immigration system.

This is not only overseas. We are also increasing interviewing and the checks that we do in our in-country operations. This is the part of the business where we have had the biggest problems in the past. Under the UK Border Agency, sadly, a lack of proper planning meant that there simply was not enough resource in place to deal with the level of work coming in. A lack of proper performance management arrangements in business areas meant that this was not spotted until it was too late, leading to the build-up of backlogs. The UK Border Agency’s closed, secretive and defensive culture then meant that Ministers and Parliament were not told the full extent of these problems early enough.

All of this, I am pleased to tell the Committee, is changing. The Government’s decision to scrap the UK Border Agency’s agency status means that UKVI sits in the Home Office and reports directly to Ministers. We have also brought in a completely new leadership team, led by Sarah Rapson, who was previously the chief executive of the successful passport service. It is instilling a much greater grip throughout the business and is committed to creating a culture which is consistently competent, high performing and customer-focused. We are seeing the results of this in performance improvements. Backlogs in temporary and permanent migration are down significantly and we are on track to completely clear workable cases by the end of this month. We have brought in new service standards that are much clearer about what customers can expect. If one was to apply today and complied with the rules one could expect to get a decision within the service standard.

We have also focused on clearing smaller backlogs that previously were not given enough priority. These include MPs’ correspondence, complaints and FoIs where poor performance contributed to a sense that the organisation was neither open nor transparent. We are clearly not yet perfect in the way we respond to these but the situation is improving. At the same time we have made significant service improvements. We have overhauled our same-day premium service centres by extending opening hours and tackling appointment harvesting. As a result, availability has increased and customer satisfaction with the service here is regularly at more than 90%. We have also launched new services such as premium postal and taken steps to tackle issues that customers have complained about, such as the fact that we hold on to their passports while we make a decision, when we do not need to.

There are, of course, still challenges. As we said when we abolished UKBA, it will take many years to completely fix the system. Some of our big challenges are in asylum, appeals and litigation, where we are seeing big rises in volumes. This is driven by world events and the work we are doing to clear backlogs and tackle abuse. Dealing with this will be a priority next year and we are bringing in extra staff to do so. We will also be continuing to focus on making sure that we are making consistent and quality decisions about people’s right to come and stay in this country. It is important to recognise that this is not always straightforward and that when making decisions on applications, case workers must carefully consider whether, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant is likely to leave the UK when they are required to do so. I suspect that that may be relevant to the case referred to by my noble friend Lord Steel. It is a matter of judgment. That is why many appeals are successful, because it is a matter of judgment. The caseworker, on his appreciation of the evidence before him, makes a balanced judgment that the applicant is likely not to return home, but when appealed the tribunal decides that it should be granted.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister but he appears to be saying that the judgment of the caseworker is wrong in so many cases.

[Earl Attlee]

I am absolutely not saying that it is wrong. I am saying that the caseworker has made a judgment and the tribunal has come to a different one. The judgment they have to make is whether the applicant will return home at the end of their stay, bearing in mind the circumstances. That has to be a judgment call.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 17th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have just a couple of questions on this group. The noble Earl may recall that at Second Reading, one thing that I said we would do in examining the Bill was, to look at first, the evidence base for bringing proposals forward and the workability of the measures proposed and, secondly, the impacts—including the unintended consequences. I would find it quite helpful if the noble Earl could say something about the reasons why this clause on driving licences has been brought forward.

On the point about the revocation of driving licences I would presume that someone who is in this country, even if they do not have a legal right to be here, is taking quite a responsible attitude if they have a driving licence. It means that they would probably have insurance. If that driving licence is then revoked, their insurance will also be revoked. Does that not cause a significant problem for other drivers on the UK’s roads if they are involved in an accident with a car whose driver, because of the revocation, has no licence at that point and whose insurance will have been revoked as well? It would be helpful to hear whether any thought has been given to that.

In terms of looking at the problems on our roads for those who are not entitled to be here, if the noble Earl were to do a straw test of members of the public, I think the issue causing them the most concern would be that of foreign cars being in this country for what is obviously longer than the six months that they are entitled to be before they are reregistered. Their drivers commit numerous offences on the roads, knowing full well that no one is going to track them down or do anything about it. The Government are taking action to bring us into line with the Irish Republic on driving offences but no action seems to be being taken regarding other countries. Can the noble Earl comment on why that matter is not being dealt with while that of driving licences is? That would be helpful in trying to understand the purpose of this clause.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, perhaps I might say a few words about Clause 41. The ability to drive in the UK is an important aspect of the quality of life for many UK residents and a privilege extended to many lawful migrants. A UK licence is used not only to drive but to secure employment and a range of services, as often it is used as proof of identity. There is no reason why the privilege of a UK driving licence should be extended to migrants who come to the UK only for short periods, have no leave or are here unlawfully. The EU directives in this area already require member states to ensure that applicants for licences are normally resident in the state of application. Those who come to the UK only for short periods of less than six months, those who have no leave and those who are illegally present in the UK should not be able to obtain a UK driving licence. This has been the Government’s policy since a Written Ministerial Statement on 25 March 2010 by the then Secretary of State for Transport, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This policy has been adopted by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland.

It is equally wrong that migrants who have obtained a UK driving licence and then overstayed their leave in the UK should be able to continue using that licence. There are no current powers to remove this privilege. Clause 42 will remedy this: it will provide a new power to revoke a UK driving licence held by a licence holder who is unlawfully present in the UK. It will also create a criminal offence to fail without reasonable excuse to surrender a revoked driving licence.

I turn to the amendments tabled in respect of Clauses 41 and 42. Regarding Amendments 72A, 72B and 72E, asylum seekers should not be able to obtain the advantage of a UK driving licence until granted leave. This would encourage economic migrants to misuse the asylum system to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers. I fear that I can be no more helpful than I was for the previous amendment. Driving is indeed an ideal route to employment for migrants, but only when they have acquired the right to be here. My noble friend Lord Avebury again raised the issue of failed asylum seekers who cannot go home. It may be a difficult issue, but it is not a good reason for agreeing to open the floodgates to encourage asylum seekers.

The Government do not intend to seek blanket revocations of driving licences and asylum seekers complying with the immigration process who already hold a licence will not generally face this sanction. Refugees will be able to obtain a UK driving licence provided they meet the relevant requirements.

On Amendments 72C and 72F, the grant of a licence is currently, and will remain, an administrative process. A person refused a licence on the grounds that they do not satisfy the residency requirements may make representations to the Home Office or reapply for the licence with the relevant proof of identity. Allowing a right of appeal direct to the courts against a decision not to issue a licence will simply drive up costs for all involved.

Turning now to Amendments 72D and 72G, an appeal against a decision to revoke or grant a licence is not the appropriate place to consider the merits of an immigration claim. This should be done via an immigration route for which appropriate appeals mechanisms already exist. It is not appropriate to allow a court hearing an appeal to consider a change of circumstances following revocation. For the affected person, the easiest and cheapest remedy is to apply for a new licence having obtained the necessary immigration leave.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked about the difficulty of a motorist having no licence, resulting in the motorist having no insurance either. I agree with the circumstances described. The police will not necessarily detect this by checking the automatic number plate recognition system, under which uninsured drivers can be detected; I have seen that happen. I accept that it will be detected only if the police actually stop the motorist in question, but that is an unintended consequence and there is little that can be done about it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thank the Minister for that helpful explanation. Does this not then fall into the category of unintended consequences? The noble Lord says that the only time it will come to light is if the police stop the vehicle for some other reason. That is not the only time it will come to light. If that driver is involved in an accident in which they are at fault, the other driver will be unable to claim any compensation or on their insurance. The UK driver, going about their lawful business, will be disadvantaged by such a policy.

[Earl Attlee]

I agree with the facts as described by the noble Baroness. She will of course be aware of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme, which provides cover where someone has an accident with an uninsured motorist.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Can the noble Earl assure me that the Government have been in contact with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, and that it would in fact cover those kinds of circumstances, where the Government withdraw a licence and therefore insurance from somebody who had been insured?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the situation is no different from that of a young tearaway motorist who loses their licence because they are banned, and then continues to drive without insurance. It is just another category of someone who is driving illegally.

I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have to say, but I have to stand my ground and hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment in due course.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I want to make just a brief observation and ask a quick question. I am quite curious about the analysis of the costs and benefits of this proposal. The point that I want to make is similar to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What is the extent of the problem that the Government are trying to resolve? My understanding is that many people on low or irregular incomes find it quite difficult to access bank services in the first place. Is there is a significant problem here that the Government are seeking to address?

I also notice that the clause is headed, “Prohibition on opening current accounts for disqualified persons”. It is not a prohibition on holding a bank account. What if somebody legally opens a bank account while they have leave to remain but their leave to remain is then revoked or expires? What action is the bank supposed to take in those circumstances? The very helpful guidance from the Home Office says that this is to ensure that there is a reduced risk of extending credit to individuals who are likely to be removed from the country at short notice. I should have thought that those whose leave to remain was revoked or had expired would be in that position. If the noble Earl could answer those questions, it would be helpful.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for the clear and succinct way in which she spoke to her Amendments 66G to 66L. These amendments seek to make various revisions to the bank accounts provisions. The objective of these provisions is to make it much more difficult for people to operate in the UK if they do not have the appropriate immigration status to be here.

Amendment 66G would amend Clause 35(2), which sets out the group of people who may be disqualified from opening an account. This amendment would specifically add to this group asylum applicants who have an outstanding claim. I am not convinced that that is what my noble friend intended. However, I can confirm that the policy intention is not to prevent these people opening a current account. The details of persons who are liable to removal and who have exhausted all their appeal rights will be the only ones shared with CIFAS, the specified anti-fraud organisation. By definition, this will not include persons with outstanding asylum applications and appeals.

My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about CIFAS. It is already a recognised checking agency and has been selected because we believe that it is the best organisation to perform this function. I will write to my noble friend with further details about that.

My noble friend also talked about the cost of these checks. First, I make it clear that a customer applying to open a bank account will not notice any difference, as these will just be checks that the banks do electronically with CIFAS. Because they are done electronically with an existing organisation, there will not be significant extra costs.

Amendment 66H would insert the word “reasonably” into the definition of a disqualified person. This amendment is unnecessary. As a matter of general administrative law, the Secretary of State is obliged to act reasonably, as pointed out by my noble friend. If he did not act reasonably, I am sure that he could be challenged in the courts by means of judicial review.

Amendment 66J would create a right to challenge or appeal against the refusal of a bank or building society to open a current account. The refusal of an account for a disqualified person by the bank or building society is mandatory and flows directly from an individual’s immigration status and the Secretary of State’s decision to disqualify the individual from opening an account. It remains open to individuals to apply via the immigration system to regularise their status or appeal through that route as appropriate. We do not need to create a fresh appeals mechanism here. However, I want to provide reassurance that if any details given to CIFAS are incorrect or become out of date, an individual would be able to complain directly to the Home Office. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the prohibition is on opening an account, not having an account. If I am incorrect on that, I will write to the noble Baroness.

If there is an error at CIFAS, the Home Office would then have a legal obligation under the Data Protection Act 1998 to correct it. The Home Office exercises considerable care over the quality of the data it shares with CIFAS and has systems in place to regularly update CIFAS records if someone’s status changes. From over 100,000 cases notified to CIFAS since 2012, I am aware of only one complaint being made to the Home Office.

Amendment 66K would require the Treasury to make regulations enabling the Financial Conduct Authority to make arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance. The amendment is not necessary, as I can assure the Committee that we will make such regulations.

Amendment 66L would leave out the words “in particular” from Clause 36(2)(b), which refers to provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to which the aforementioned regulations may apply. The words “in particular” are intended to make it clear that the list of provisions is not exhaustive, and they follow similar provisions in LASPO. The list is simply intended to give a clearer sense of the provisions that the regulations are intended to cover.

In short, my noble friend Lord Avebury expressed concerns about whether these measures were appropriate. These proposals do not breach human rights legislation; they will not impact on a person’s ability to provide themselves with the basic necessities, nor prevent them interacting with the world around them. This measure is necessary and proportionate; it supports immigration control which is a legitimate aim. My noble friend was asking broadly what would be done to ensure that the measures do not have the effect of turning the individuals concerned into vulnerable people. These individuals will still be able to conduct everyday transactions using cash, but I heard the noble Lord express concern about people’s supply of cash mounting up. In the past he has chided me about the relatively limited amounts of money supplied under Section 4 support to failed asylum seekers. The measures will make it more difficult for them to obtain loans and conduct a settled life in the UK, but it will not make it impossible for them to exist.

I hope that I have reassured the Committee that these amendments, while useful for seeking assurance, are not necessary, and I hope that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw them.

Immigration

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend may have been talking about the accession of Poland. A very large number of Poles came to this country. I was talking about Romania and Bulgaria, where we expect that the numbers will not be so large.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said in his Answer that it was too early to make an assessment of the numbers. However, some of the language from the Government has been quite alarmist rhetoric. Would it not be better to look at measures to stop any workers being exploited, such as stronger and better enforcement of the national minimum wage, and also to tackle those loopholes that allow agency workers, often from overseas, to be employed at much lower rates than home-grown employees?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. One thing that we have done is to increase very significantly the fixed penalty for employers for not paying the minimum wage. We also need to look at a number of instances where immigrant labour is being abused—for instance, agricultural workers from eastern Europe. The noble Baroness is right; we need to keep a grip on this.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

That the House do again resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, may I raise a point about the further consideration of the Bill today? At 6.03 pm yesterday, we received quite a lengthy letter from the Minister with amendments that I am told are to be debated today. Is it appropriate to receive amendments at such late notice for debate the following day?

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. The proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We therefore propose to add both Jama’atu Ahli Sunna Lidda Awati Wal Jihad, more widely known as Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 12th proscription order under that Act.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary believes that both organisations meet the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe them. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism.

The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation; invite support for a proscribed organisation; arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available, relevant information on the organisation. This includes open-source material as well as intelligence material, and advice that reflects consultation across government, including the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that both Houses must approve the order before proscribing a new organisation.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that both organisations are concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence but I can provide a brief summary.

Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic Caliphate, seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks. It has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas Day 2011 that killed at least 26, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013, that killed more than 60, were both attributed to the organisation.

The organisation has also sought to attack western targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. They have also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the last few years.

I stress that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we also make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism around the globe.

Minbar Ansar Deen is a Salafist group based in the UK which promotes and encourages terrorism. Minbar Ansar Deen distributes material through its online forum which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity—specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries.

Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It is not, of course, appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decision to proscribe.

The proscription of both these organisations will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and will signal our condemnation of these organisation and their activities.

I should make it clear to noble Lords that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism.

I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact, so the legislation provides an appeal mechanism. Anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be deproscribed. If refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions.

In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add both groups to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation and the information he has given to us today. I understand that he is restricted in what he can say for reasons that are obvious to us all, but I appreciate the information he has been able to give. We also understand that Governments do not act unless they are assured that the information available is accurate and up to date. I feel some sympathy for the noble Earl on these issues as I did in connection with the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that some of the words can be quite difficult to pronounce. I commend him on his efforts.

Obtaining evidence on which to bring forward such orders is obviously time consuming, painstaking and can at times be very dangerous. I am sure that your Lordships’ House wishes to pay tribute to the work of the agencies that undertake such investigations. As the Minister said, a group can be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if it,

“commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.

On the basis of the information provided by the noble Earl, we are content to support the Government in this proscription.

This is the third time I have spoken for the Opposition on proscription orders; unfortunately, each time a different Minister has spoken for the Government, but I hope that the noble Earl has had the opportunity to look at some of the previous debates we have had on the other two orders. He will have noted that last year I queried why action had not been taken against the Boko Haram sect, given that the organisation that we were then taking action to proscribe, Ansaru, was in fact a breakaway group from Boko Haram and had been in existence for a much shorter time. I asked then that it be kept under review as we were somewhat surprised not to be discussing this group then, given the evidence of their activities that was available.

I understand the need to have accurate, up-to-date information, but there is also the need to act swiftly and decisively. Are the noble Earl and the Government content that they have acted quickly enough? It would be helpful if he could give some explanation about why there has been a time lag between these two orders, given that we previously knew about the activities of Boko Haram when we discussed this issue last year. The evidence appears overwhelming and the Government are quite right to bring it before us; the Minister described some of the large-scale terrorist attacks that have claimed many lives.

That brings me to one aspect that is of concern; I do not know how the Government are seeking to address it. One core or central organisation may have many different parts, and as one group or organisation is proscribed, another ready-made organisation takes its place and carries on with its deadly mission. I appreciate all the issues we have discussed about action having to be evidence-based, but I am pretty sure that the security services must have some kind of organisational chart or map of the relationships between different groups and individuals and how they interact. It would be helpful if the noble Earl was able to say something about how we can address this issue of different organisations being proscribed and then others springing up.

In both the previous debates I raised the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The noble Earl will recall that when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was the leader of the Opposition, he was in no doubt that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed. He repeatedly attacked the Labour Government for not doing so. The Minister, rightly, has been very clear today that action to proscribe a group has to be taken on the evidence available. I know how complex and difficult it is to get all that evidence and present it in an appropriate manner. However, unless David Cameron was acting irresponsibly as leader of the Opposition, he must have examined and considered the issue and the information at that time and made the judgment that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed.

At Gordon Brown’s first Prime Minister’s Questions in 2007, David Cameron made this his first topic. He said:

“Hizb ut-Tahrir … should be banned—why has it not happened?”.

When it was pointed out that evidence was required, Mr Cameron criticised that and said:

“What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation … when will this be done? People will find it hard to understand why an organisation that urges people to kill Jews has not been banned”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/07; cols. 951-52.]

The party opposite has now been in power for more than three years and still Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been banned but there must have been evidence available for the then leader of the Opposition to make the very bold statement he made on many occasions in the House of Commons.

I am not going to make the same points that were raised against us when we were in government. I thought at the time that it was inappropriate and irresponsible and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible for me to do so as well. However, I ask the Minister to assure your Lordships’ House that this organisation is under observation and review and that there will be no unnecessary delays in bringing forward a further order if the evidence warrants it.

Is the Minister aware of the evidence presented in the 2011 review of the Prevent strategy that Hizb ut-Tahrir is targeting universities and seeking to radicalise students? That was confirmed in a Parliamentary Answer to Diana Johnson MP last week. The Minister, James Brokenshire, said that,

“we believe there is unambiguous evidence to indicate that some extremist organisations, including Hizb-ut-Tahrir, target specific universities and colleges … with the objective of influencing and recruiting students to support their agenda”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/13; col. 786W.]

I know the noble Earl understands the danger of home-grown extremism. Your Lordships’ House was shocked, angered and deeply saddened by the horrific killing of Lee Rigby in London. I do not think that there is anything more that I, or anyone else, can say that makes a more powerful and compelling case for reviewing all measures in place for tackling this kind of recruiting behaviour to ensure they are appropriate and effective. I hope the Minister can give an assurance today that there will be such a review to ensure that all the current measures to tackle recruiting behaviour are effective and if not, that they will be strengthened to ensure that they are. Can I also ask the noble Earl about the funding for the Prevent strategy and similar work and if any changes have been made to that in the past three years?

Towards the end of his speech the Minister referred to organisations that could be deproscribed on application to the Home Secretary and, if the response was unsatisfactory, by judicial review. As I understand it, the independent reviewer, David Anderson, has proposed that there should be a process for organisations to be deproscribed. I am not convinced that the Government have acted on that yet. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could say something about that. On both points I am happy for him to write to me.

We support this measure and I hope the noble Earl can address the points I have raised. We are deeply grateful to those who obtain the evidence required and appreciative of the dangers they face in obtaining such evidence. I also want to impress on the noble Earl how important it is that we act on accurate information as swiftly as possible.

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2013

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I have a couple of questions for clarification on the order. At the top of page 2, Article 4 inserts two new articles, 8 and 8ZA. Article 8 has a new process of an oral grant or refusal of leave, whereby an individual who has been granted leave to remain or refusal to remain can be told that by telephone. I am slightly puzzled about the mechanics of how that would work. I indicated to the noble Earl that I intended to raise this matter.

Some people who apply will, of course, not have English as their first language and may have difficulty in understanding. What process is undertaken to ensure that the person receiving the notice to leave the country or to remain fully understands what they are being told, so that there is no misunderstanding? If someone receives something in writing saying that they do not have leave to remain in the country, they can take it to a solicitor and get advice, but if they receive that information over the telephone they will have to digest it at a later date. I am slightly concerned that someone may get information but not fully understand the nature of that information and not be able to act on it because they are puzzled or do not have any proof of that information. How is it possible to be assured of the identity of someone being notified that they may be granted leave to remain or refused leave to remain in the country if you only talk to them on the telephone? I have questions about how that will work. I am not clear about the security issues involved.

Article 8ZA paragraph (4) says:

“Where attempts to give notice”—

for a grant, refusal or variation of leave in writing—

“are not possible or have failed”.

That is the point that the noble Earl was making. That could be put on file and deemed to have been served. In paragraph (4) it refers to “attempts” in the plural, so obviously two attempts have to be made, but is there any guidance on how those attempts should be made? When it talks about attempts to give notice not being possible, why would it not be possible to make an attempt to contact someone? I am slightly puzzled by the wording.

Paragraph (6) says:

“A notice given under this article may, in the case of a person who is under 18 years of age and does not have a representative, be given to the parent, guardian or another adult who for the time being takes responsibility for the child”.

Does that mean a legal responsibility, or could it be a casual and informal responsibility? I recently raised a case with the Home Office where an individual was seeking to have a passport returned on behalf of another person and I was told that it could not act or intercede with that person because there was no legal authority to do so. I am slightly puzzled how the situation of someone who, for the time being, takes responsibility for a child being able to receive information regarding the granting, refusal or variation of a right to remain in the country would work in practice.

My final point is on the presumption of receipt of notice. The article refers to the notice being sent by the postal service and on the second day after it is sent,

“it shall be deemed to have been given to the person”.

What happens in the event of a mail or postal strike, as we have seen in some parts of the country? I would be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify those points and give me some answers.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the supportive and thoughtful contributions made by both noble Lords.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, on reporting suspected immigration irregularities, there is a generic hotline for members of the public and stakeholders to report suspected immigration offenders. Information is available on the Home Office website, and I can write to the noble Lord with further information. However, it is a good point that we should understand about the abuse of our NHS facilities.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I will write in detail to the noble Lord on the issue of confidentiality and on whether anything else needs to be done. Everyone is aware of the abuse of our NHS treatment, to which a lot of immigrants are not entitled.

The Government have made this order to protect our ability to control immigration and ensure that migrants are treated fairly. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK attracts the brightest and best migrants but is closed to those who seek to abuse the system. We must be clear to the public, our corporate partners and those who wish to come here that we will take action against migrants who fail to pursue the purpose of their leave. In the most non-compliant cases we will require the individual to leave the UK immediately or be subject to enforced removal.

Where the cessation of sponsorship is a result of the sponsor losing their licence or migrant non-compliance is not clear, we must operate a system that is fair and enables bona fide migrants who want to study to switch to another sponsor—and the system does that. However, our ability to take appropriate action must not be hampered by gaps in legislation or result in delays and the need for time-consuming and bureaucratic processes. We do not want to create a duty on sponsors to have to report every change in their migrants’ address, phone number or e-mail address. That would be far too onerous a task. However, it is reasonable to ask the sponsor to provide the latest contact details with their notifications. That will give us the best opportunity of communicating the decision to the individual concerned in the first instance. If we cannot serve the notice on the individual, whether by post or some other means, we will seek to serve the notice on the migrant’s representative. Only where that is not possible, or the service fails, will we serve the decision on file.

The order amends Article 8 of the 2000 order. These changes are technical and retain the current position in Article 8, which provides that a notice giving or refusing leave to enter may be given by fax, e-mail or, in the case of a visitor, orally, including by means of a telecommunication system. The amending order retains the provision in Article 8 regarding oral notice to visitors but transfers the provisions regarding fax and e-mail to the new Article 8ZA, where other means of giving the notice are dealt with—post, courier and so on—and I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to confirm the procedure for giving oral notice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked what the purpose was of such a broad definition of adults who are responsible for children. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out the answer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I think that the noble Earl misunderstood my question. If he checks Hansard, I should be happy to receive a letter with the answer.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that would probably be helpful. Perhaps I will just move on.

I trust that the House will agree that this order will ensure that we have a consistent statutory framework that protects the Secretary of State’s ability to control migration and is fair on genuine migrants. As I have already said, this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK attracts the brightest and best migrants. Where it is appropriate, we should give individuals an opportunity to continue working and studying here. It is not just a matter of fairness, ensuring that we do not act disproportionately. It is also about recognising the important role that genuine migrants play in enriching our communities and supporting economic recovery. I hope that the House will look favourably on the order and agree the Motion.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2013

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the order was made on 3 June and came into force on 10 June 2013. The order specifies four N-BOMe and six benzofuran substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 29 May, the Government received a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) under the temporary control provisions of the 1971 Act, advising that the N-BOMe and benzofuran substances are being misused, and that their misuse is having sufficiently harmful effects to warrant legislative action. My honourable friend the Minister for Crime Prevention was satisfied, in consideration of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s assessment, that the conditions to make a temporary class drug order were met.

N-BOMe substances are highly potent drugs which are regarded as alternatives to the class A drug LSD. Clinically observed health effects include hypertension, agitation and aggression, visual and audio hallucination, and seizures. Two patients were admitted to intensive care after using this drug. Anecdotal evidence from self-reported users also highlight highly negative effects including confusion, shaking, nausea, insomnia, paranoia and unwanted feelings.

We agree with the ACMD that urgent action is required because of the extremely potent nature of these substances in powder and liquid form, and the high risk of overdose. We are also aware that to mitigate the risk of overdose, some suppliers have used perforated pre-loaded paper doses in the form of blotters and tabs, similar to the way LSD is sold.

The benzofuran substances—such as 5- and 6- APB—are related to the class A drug ecstasy (MDMA). They are most commonly sold under the brand name Benzo Fury and marketed as legal alternatives to ecstasy. The effects of these substances include insomnia, increased heart rate and anxiety, with some users reporting ecstasy-like symptoms. Several deaths and hospitalisations in the UK have been associated with the use of these compounds. There are also risks associated with the long-term use of these drugs such as cardiac toxicity.

The order applies UK-wide to protect the public, enabling enforcement action against suppliers and traffickers, while the ACMD prepares full advice on these substances. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially young people, that these substances are harmful drugs. Of course, we will continue to monitor data on these drugs to measure the impact of the order through all available channels, and share this information with the ACMD.

This order was made in consideration of evidence that these substances pose a clear threat to public health and safety, not least young people who believe traffickers’ claims that legal highs are safer than controlled drugs. We have a duty to take action to prevent new psychoactive substances—NPSs—which pose equally serious health risks from gaining a foothold in the UK drugs market.

Our action today, through temporary control legislation, is a vehicle which enables us to act swiftly to protect the public and provide time to the advisory council to gather evidence and prepare full advice on these drugs. Legislative action also plays an important part in supporting our wider public protection policies.

This legislative action is supportive of our long-term strategic objectives set out in the Government’s action plan to tackle the new psychoactive substances market from all angles; to reduce demand by raising awareness of the harms of new psychoactive substances; to make it difficult to obtain and supply those that pose risks to health; and to ensure that statutory services are able effectively to provide treatment and support recovery. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the drugs. I am always grateful that these drugs have street names that we can pronounce, because the only light relief there could be on this issue is to hear the Minister reading out the chemical names of all the substances for which he has brought forward the order today.

We on this side of the House put on the record our appreciation of the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, specifically for the work it has done to bring forward this order. Its members give freely of their expertise and advice, and we are hugely grateful that they do so. We are content to accept their advice and support the order before us today. There is evidence that these two drugs, N-BOMe and Benzo Fury, and their derivatives and variations have been responsible for hospitalisations and deaths. They are dangerous and damaging and those who trade in these substances care nothing for their impact and the harm that they cause—merely for their own profits.

In supporting the order I refer to some of the key issues that are relevant to this discussion, and on which I would find it helpful if the Minister could provide some clarity and information. I understand and appreciate the process that has brought this specific order before us, but I am not altogether clear on some issues, such as timescales and action taken by other countries, whether it is on similar timescales and whether greater co-operation is now available. The Minister will be aware of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which has a key role in detection and assessment of new drugs across the entire EU. Can the Minister tell me—I think that we have had similar information from Ministers previously—how many new substances have been identified by the EMCDDA since 2010, and how many of those have now been identified by the Home Office early warning system? The Minister may not have the figures to hand and I am happy for him to write to me. We learnt from the debate on an earlier order that the Home Office had identified only 11 out of 90 substances identified by the EMCDDA in 2010-11. My understanding is that now more than 200 substances have been identified by the EMCDDA. How many of those have been identified by the Home Office? I ask because I am keen to see that we are keeping pace with the rest of Europe in identifying and taking action on new drugs and substances as they enter the UK market.

The Minister mentioned that they are sometimes referred to as legal highs. That lulls some people into a false sense of security that a drug is safe because it is not illegal. Yet the only reason it is legal is that the formal process of making it illegal has not been completed. Yesterday I Attended an IPU briefing on the drugs trade and I was struck by one specific fact: that synthetic drugs now account for 20% to 25% of the drugs market. As their use is growing, the need to be on the ball with identification and action becomes all the more important and crucial.

When debating a previous order I asked the then Minister if he was aware of the reasons for the difference in the number of drugs identified by the EMCDDA and those identified by the Home Office. He was not able to respond to me on that occasion. It would be helpful to know and, again, I shall understand if the Minister prefers to write to me with the accurate statistics and explanation. I suspect that there are probably a number of genuine and understandable reasons. Is there just a short time lag between one body indentifying a substance and the information being fed through to the Home Office? Are the Government waiting for advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? I will come back to that point, because we do not want any unnecessary delay in identifying and taking action, when the growth of these synthetically manufactured drugs is racing ahead.

I am keen to ensure, as I am sure the Minister is, that we make full use of co-operation with other European countries that are tackling the same issues, which are incredibly difficult. Co-operation across international boundaries is essential as we are all facing similar problems that are having a similar impact on our societies. We all want to be reassured that we are acting on these issues with the sense of urgency that the public deserve and expect. I do not for one second doubt the Minister’s intentions; I would not want that to be misunderstood. However, I am worried that some of the factual information of the timings gives cause for concern. It may be that we need to review the process that we have undertaken to get us to this point to see whether we could act more swiftly.

My understanding is that the information contained in the letter that the Home Secretary received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs indicated that Benzo Fury, the drug that we getting a temporary banning order on today, was first referred to the National Poisons Information Service in 2009, after being identified as a drug that led to hospitalisations. I am not suggesting that that on its own would be enough to bring us to this point, because obviously the drug has to be properly assessed. However, the chair of the ACMD, Professor Les Iversen, recently said that the council had the resources to assess only two or three new substances a year. If between 70 and 200 dangerous and damaging substances are on the market legally and there is an increase in the manufacturing of synthetic drugs—many of which there will be a strong case for making illegal—to be identifying or assessing just two or three a year is completely inadequate. Is there more that we should be doing now to ensure that we are not constantly lagging behind what is happening in Europe? Such a lagging behind is likely to lead to increased dangers and increased hospitalisations, and possibly worse.

Does the Minister know how long it took for the drug Benzo Fury, for example, to appear on the Government’s forensic early-warning system since it was first identified in 2009? It seems to me that there should be some co-operation and cross-referencing—I have given him notice that I would be asking this question today—between the National Poisons Information Service, the TICTAC database on chemical compounds, the EMCDDA’s register of new substances and the Home Office’s forensic early-warning system. Can he provide some information on how such co-operation and liaison works? Again, I am happy to receive a letter.

Can the Minister also tell us what processes are in place to investigate the effects of a substance once it is recorded? We need a proper pharmacological investigation into these substances, but I understand that this is very expensive. My understanding is that it costs approximately £100,000 per substance. The Home Office has provided just £200,000 from the health budget for this purpose, although I am not sure whether that amount remains following the CSR. European co-operation would be invaluable. I would be interested to know what discussions are taking place with other European Ministers and agencies.

One of the flies in the ointment of increased European co-operation is the Government’s plan to opt out of the police and criminal justice measures of the EU. I know that the Government want to opt back in to some measures. It would be inconceivable if this kind of measure was not included as it is clear that the EMCDDA is very much ahead of the game as to what is happening across Europe as a whole. Are there any contingency plans on the drugs issue, particularly if a Danish type of situation arose where we could not opt back in, as we wanted?

I apologise for taking slightly longer to speak, but I am very concerned about the number of drugs coming on to the market at the moment. Can the Minister say anything about internet sales? A number of internet sites offer what they call “legal highs” as alternatives to already banned or illegal drugs. It is hard, I know, to monitor the actions of all of them, but what monitoring is taking place? Often it can be a way of identifying when a legal drug is getting hold of the market.

It is clear from the drugs listed today that one has to be very precise about the substances involved. I understand that there is a risk that a minor chemical change can create a new drug and then a new order is needed. The Government are trying to address that issue and that is why the order before us today is welcome. Do we need to have a new order each time there is a chemical change? I support the order. I welcome the Minister’s explanation and thank him for bringing the order forward. However, we need a broader strategy to ensure that we are not running behind to catch up on such a serious issue.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Medical Research Council’s ethics and regulation committee. Can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to altering the defaults on this policy? When it comes to prescription drugs, we require proof of safety before a drug proceeds to clinical trials and attempts to establish efficacy. Why should proof of safety not be a prerequisite for the marketing of any substance that is used as a drug?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I will answer the noble Baroness’s question before I forget it. I suspect the reason is that the legislation creates serious criminal offences and we have to be sure that the creation of such an offence is necessary. If I have anything more to add—if any inspiration comes from the Box—then I shall do so, but I suspect that that is the answer.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I thank the House for the helpful discussion. I trust that when I have finished I will have fully made the case for the temporary class drug order to be approved in the House on the basis of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s advice.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concern about resources. The Home Secretary commissions the ACMD to undertake specific pieces of work each year, and it has the flexibility to prioritise its resources accordingly. However, the use of generic definitions means that the advisory council is able to consider and provide advice on families and groups rather than on individual substances. This enables the Government to tackle multiple substances in a single legislative action.

Before I go into further detail on the points raised by noble Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in commending the ACMD for its continuous work and support of our work priorities, including on “legal highs”. More than ever, the fast pace of this market requires careful prioritisation of our resources and underscores the need for closer working within a broader network of partners, in the UK and abroad, to inform and preserve the integrity of our drug laws.

The noble Baroness quite rightly asked about a sense of urgency. In the case of this particular order we received advice from the ACMD on 29 May; we made the order on 3 June; and it came into effect on 10 July. The noble Baroness also asked when benzofuran compounds were first identified in the UK. Our forensic early warning system, which I will say more about in a moment, first identified the benzofuran substances 5- and 6-APB in early 2011. Together with the advisory council we kept under review the health harms associated with these compounds. The latest evidence suggests that legislative action needs to be taken.

I remind the House that we take action when we see a health harm becoming apparent, not when we become aware that the drug exists. The drug can exist—theoretically it might be on the market in other parts of the world—but we will not legislate until it starts to cause a problem in the UK. We do not need to legislate for everything. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that we do not want to legislate for every drug that could be abused.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I appreciate the point that the noble Earl is making and I am grateful for it. I was making a point about the different organisations which all have a responsibility to share information in this area. The poisons body to which I referred first identified this as a problem in 2009. It took until 2011, according to the noble Earl’s information, for the Home Office to become aware of that.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Baroness may or may not be right. However, I will have more to say on co-operation.

We are making progress in reducing the availability of these drugs through UK law enforcement agencies prioritising work on new psychoactive substances. We are also working with trading standards to tackle their emergence using consumer protection legislation and providing guidance to complement drug control. We have a world-leading forensic early warning system that we are exporting, through leading two resolutions at the UN, enabling the monitoring of new psychoactive substances at a global level for the first time.

Perhaps I may first draw your Lordships’ attention to the forensic early warning system. This is a Home Office programme set up since January 2011 in response to legal highs. It detects new drugs in the UK through test purchasing and forensic work. It informs the advisory council’s consideration and our wider response. It works by test purchasing samples for analysis from the internet and “head shops”—whatever they are—collecting music festival and non-casework police samples, and other sensible courses of action. This has made a vital contribution to health and safety at summer festivals. Data from FEWS has been shared with ACMD to inform its advice on a drug called 2-DPMP, synthetic cannabinoids, methoxetamine—which I tried to practice pronouncing—including the latest substances, NBOMe and benzofurans which we are talking about.

I also draw the House’s attention to the drugs early warning system. This works by linking health and law enforcement agencies to provide access to evidence and timely information on NPS—new psychoactive substances. UK Focal Point acts as an information hub, collecting and sharing data from UK and EU drugs early warning systems with ACMD and the Home Office. So we are not on our own. UK Focal Point can also liaise directly with the National Poisons Information Service when required. When, for example, a threat from a new psychoactive substance becomes apparent, the Home Office will ask UK Focal Point—and has done so in the case of these substances and others that I cannot pronounce—to distribute a request for information from national and international partners.

The noble Baroness asked me about the number of new substances coming on to the market. Counting the number of substances identified elsewhere in Europe cannot be used as a barometer to measure the extent of the problem in the UK. Many of these substances have never been seen before in the UK, a point that I have already made, and the majority of those that have are controlled thanks to the generic definitions which capture families of drugs used under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Government are acting fast to tackle these new substances.

I have talked about the forensic early warning system. In addition, the temporary control power affords a flexibility to control these drugs quickly while the advisory council assesses their full harm and when the evidence base on their prevalence, use or likely use and harm supports legislative action. As I have already said, the use of generic definitions enables us to future-proof our legislation by catching families and groups at a time, and therefore drugs that are yet to appear on the UK market. These systems, including our drugs early warning system, continue to contribute to the considerations of the ACMD, as it has done with NBOMe and benzofuran substances and our previous temporary class drug methoxetamine, which is now a class B drug. In addition, health and law enforcement partners continue to have access to information and the latest evidence from the UK and EU.

The most helpful course of action that I can take is to write to the noble Baroness on some of the further details, which I think she will find interesting. I hope that noble Lords will find that this legislative measure will ensure that the public are protected from the harm of these new psychoactive substances. I beg to move.

Asylum Seekers

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 20th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the legislation is specifically designed to make sure that asylum seekers do not become destitute. They are supported under Sections 95 and 4, particularly Section 95 when their application is being determined. I would like to discuss with the noble Baroness privately why she thinks that female asylum seekers should be more vulnerable to becoming destitute. She has also previously raised with me the difficulties experienced by female asylum seekers, particularly in respect of torture.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, asylum seekers sometimes wait years for a decision and delays are increasing. As we have heard, that leaves genuine refugees in limbo and makes it harder to send failed cases home. We currently have a shambolic situation whereby 300,000 people are trapped in the immigration asylum backlog, with 90,000 cases being written off so far or given effective amnesty because papers have been lost in some cases. I know the Minister will tell us that the Government are making organisational changes, but can he say something about the specific practical actions that are being taken to deal with the problem? Does he recognise that the dramatic cut in the number of staff at UK Border Agency has contributed to this backlog?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I do not recognise some of the figures the noble Baroness has quoted. My information is that the expenditure on asylum support has gone down, as I said, from £1.2 billion in 2003 to below £300 million now. I accept that there is a problem in dealing with the legacy backlog, but the Question is about asylum seekers’ ability to work. The more we can reduce unfounded asylum claims, the better we can properly determine the genuine applicants and look after them properly.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

Saudi Arabia: Driving Licences

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the recognition of Saudi Arabian driving licences in the United Kingdom.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, no consideration has been given to the exchange of Saudi Arabian driving licences in the UK. Consideration would be given only after an approach has come from the Government of Saudi Arabia to recognise their driving licences. To date, no such approach has been made.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am slightly confused by the Minister’s Answer. My understanding is that Saudi Arabian driving licences are valid in this country for up to a year for Saudi Arabian citizens. As he will be aware, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to make it a criminal offence for women to drive. Recently, a sentence of 10 lashes was handed out to a woman driver, although that was later commuted. Will the Minister consider the current position? Will he look at whether the UK recognition of Saudi Arabian driving licences for a year should be withheld until driving licences are available to all citizens and not just to male citizens? Can he discuss with his Foreign Office colleagues what action can be taken by the British Government to raise concerns about the Saudi Arabian Government’s position on this appalling discrimination?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, on the substantive question about recognition or non-recognition of Saudi driving licences, the noble Baroness will recognise that we are under a treaty obligation in terms of the international circulation order. However, we welcome King Abdullah’s overturning of the recent sentence of lashing for a woman convicted of driving. It is well known that this Government, like their predecessor, have particular concern about some aspects of human rights protection in Saudi Arabia, most notably women’s rights. The UK has consistently called for women in Saudi Arabia to be able to participate fully in society. That means removing legal and cultural barriers, like the guardianship system and the ban on women driving.

Sustainable Local Transport

Debate between Earl Attlee and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have the same problem; I live on a hill. I am not sure that I would like to ride a bicycle up it, but I will try in the summer. The noble Lord will know that bus routes and bus provision are matters for the local transport authority. He talked about the need for innovative solutions. I agree with him, but it is for local transport authorities to develop these solutions. Our role is to encourage them, not to tell them exactly what to do by means of a long screwdriver.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister on the Statement. The first concerns the carbon implications of transport investment decisions. Does he not accept that one of the great successes of the previous Labour Government was the over-60s bus pass, which ensured that many pensioners either leave their cars at home or use them less frequently, and use buses a great deal more? Will he give a guarantee and a commitment that that bus pass is safe and will not be removed or reduced, or the terms altered to the detriment of the over-60s, to ensure that we keep people on buses and not in their cars?

Secondly, as a former Road Safety Minister in Northern Ireland, I take a great interest in road safety measures. The Minister was right to highlight the reduction in the number of young people and children who have been killed or seriously injured. One of my concerns is the reduction in the number of safety cameras across the country, which many in his party support. Does he feel that the number of young people—or people of any age—who are killed or seriously injured on the roads will increase as a result of the reduction in the number of safety cameras?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Baroness talked about carbon implications and the over-60s bus pass. She asked for an absolute commitment. I confess that I had not anticipated the question. Perhaps the best approach would be for her to ask a Written Question, whereupon she will get a categorical answer. She also talked about safety cameras. Speaking for Her Majesty's Government, I say that we will watch very carefully what happens and monitor the accident statistics. That is the only thing that we can do.